New Writs

Ordered,
	That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Ealing, Southall, in the room of Piara Singh Khabra, deceased .
	 Ordered,
	That Mr. Speaker do his issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Sedgefield in the room of the Right Honourable Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, who since his election for the said County Constituency hath accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham .—[Jacqui Smith.]

Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Academic Boycott (Israel)

Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the proposed academic boycott of Israel.

Bill Rammell: We have made our position on this issue extremely clear in recent weeks, including during my recent visit to Israel, when I stated clearly that the Government fully support academic freedom and are firmly against any academic boycotts of Israel or Israeli academics. While I appreciate the independence of the University and College Union, I am very disappointed that it has decided to pass a motion that encourages its members to consider boycotting Israeli academics and education institutions. I profoundly believe that that does nothing to promote the middle east peace process—in fact, it does the reverse.

Michael Fabricant: I am very grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will know from his visit to Israel that its academic institutions lead the world, especially in the fields of medicine, science, engineering and IT. Any boycott would damage higher education in the UK, as well as in Israel. What steps can he take as a Minister to ensure that there is co-operation and dialogue? Even Universities UK has said that such a boycott would be very damaging to us in Britain.

Bill Rammell: The fact that I undertook the visit to Israel very shortly after the boycott was announced, a visit on which I was very pleased to be accompanied by Professor Drummond Bone, vice-chancellor of Liverpool university, and president of Universities UK, sent out a very strong message on behalf of those institutions. Education must be a bridge between different peoples, and not a subject of conflict. We are currently working on an idea that I put forward during the visit—that we hold a seminar in London involving Palestinian, Israeli and British academics to demonstrate that education should bring people together.

Jane Kennedy: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and applaud the fact that Professor Drummond Bone accompanied him on his visit to Israel. May I invite him to consider what it must be like for Jewish students on British campuses? They are facing a mean and nasty campaign by lecturers that could be described as anti-Semitic. Students of all religions and faiths—and none—should be welcomed on campuses. Such a campaign could damage Britain's universities and students here, as well as our interests abroad.

Bill Rammell: I wholly agree with my right hon. Friend. The numbers of overseas students on our campuses has grown. At a time of international conflict, having students of all faiths, nationalities and belief systems working, studying and living together can only be a force for good. It is clear that Israeli academics and Jewish students feel that they have been picked out for special treatment by the boycott, whereas academics in countries without democratic institutions but with much weaker records in human rights are not proposed for boycott. We need to be steadfast on the matter, and this Government will be.

Lee Scott: Does the Minister agree that, when so many Israeli universities are doing projects and programmes that benefit not only the Jewish people of Israel but the Druse, the Palestinians and people far beyond that, a boycott can only be detrimental and, far from bringing peace, will divide people?

Bill Rammell: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. During my visit to Jerusalem, I met Israeli academics at Hebrew university who were engaged in giving direct advice to the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The idea that we would want to stop that kind of co-operation bewilders me, and we should oppose it most strongly.

Nick Palmer: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with sweeping actions such as the boycott is that they affect individuals regardless of their personal views for or against the peace process? While we can understand people who take a critical view of one Government or another, they should not use a weapon that hurts individuals who might actually agree with them.

Bill Rammell: Again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I profoundly believe that in Israel and the occupied territories, there are both progressive and reactionary voices. The problem with an academic boycott is that it makes the job and the position of the progressives much more difficult and it entrenches and enhances the position of those who want to take a hard line.

Child Care

Janet Dean: What assistance the Government provide to parents who need child care in order to take up training.

Beverley Hughes: I am announcing £75 million over the next three years so that 50,000 workless families can benefit from free child care, helping parents to gain access to training and move into work. This is in addition to a number of other schemes that help parents pay for child care while training, including care to learn for young parents, learner support funds for adult learners and the new deal for lone parents as well as special pilot schemes in London. Together with the existing schemes, this new funding will help to establish a more comprehensive and coherent system that reaches those in most need of support.

Janet Dean: I thank my right hon. Friend for the answer and for the announcement of the extra funding. Will that help the small number of young women in particular who cannot claim working tax credit to support their apprenticeships because they are in non-employed apprenticeships and, if they are over 20, also cannot claim care to learn child care support? If that funding will not help them, can she consider how we can help them?

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in this matter. As she implies, people on apprenticeships that are classed as employment can apply for working tax credit and, contrary to popular belief, that applies to parents from age 16, not from age 25. She is right that young people on apprenticeships that are classed as non-employed are eligible for education maintenance allowance and, in some instances, care to learn funding. I will take on board my hon. Friend's comments and make sure that we examine the small number of young people who may fall between those stools. We need to ensure that we have a comprehensive system as a result of the funding and that we can assist all those who need help with child care to get into training or work.

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke). If she feels more comfortable, she can address the House from a seated position.

Annette Brooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What assistance is available to parents who are not seeking work or training, but whose children would particularly benefit from good early-years provision, which may help them to break out of the spiral of poverty within the family?

Beverley Hughes: In addition to all the general Sure Start funding that the Government have put in, to the tune of £21 billion, a specific amount—£3 billion per annum—has been made available to fund free nursery entitlement for every three and four-year-old. That is of great benefit, especially for children from more disadvantaged families, in which parents may not be working but can use that entitlement to get into training or work. In addition, we have some special pilots focused on children over two but under three who do not necessarily qualify for the full entitlement. The pilots are focused in very disadvantaged areas to see whether, by getting those children into early education, we can assist their parents into training and work.

History Teaching

Andrew Rosindell: If he will make a statement on the teaching of history in schools.

Parmjit Dhanda: We are currently considering final advice on the new key stage 3 curriculum to be taught from September 2008. The advice specifies the holocaust, the slave trade and the two world wars as compulsory. British history will remain as a substantial element of the curriculum, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the Minister for his reply, but does he agree that a firm grasp of our country's history is vital for all our children and that teaching segments in isolation does nothing to improve the understanding of the glorious traditions of this country? What plans do the Government have to ensure that children are taught a well-rounded and comprehensive history of these islands?

Parmjit Dhanda: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Minister answers, may I tell Members as gently as possible that I would prefer them not to read out their supplementary questions? Supplementaries should be a spontaneous reflection on what the Minister has said.

Parmjit Dhanda: I shall try to be as spontaneous as I can, Mr. Speaker.
	British history is an important element at all key stages. Our review of key stage 3 will make a difference by ensuring that important elements of British history will be supported; in addition, GCSE and A-level courses will have a minimum content of 25 per cent. British history.

Chris Bryant: May I suggest another area that should be part of historical education in this country? The history of Parliament. Parliament has played a key role in establishing our liberties and freedoms, so will my hon. Friend make sure that we use all our resources here so that schools have proper access to this place? Will he also talk to the British Museum about using its resources so that people can understand not only British history but that of the wider world, too?

Parmjit Dhanda: I should love the opportunity to talk to the British Museum, and if I get the chance I am sure I will. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about Parliament, which is, as many Members are aware, part of the citizenship curriculum. Many Members talk about Parliament and the benefits of parliamentary democracy to pupils who visit and tour this place. Long may that continue.

David Heath: May I make a plea for room in the curriculum for the teaching of local history and local culture? It is important that young people have a sense of place and identity. I am struck by the fact that when I take children around the House and show them things that relate to the history of Somerset, their teachers tell me that they are never taught about that in history, which seems a great shame.

Parmjit Dhanda: There is flexibility in the curriculum for that. Last week, I addressed a conference in Cheltenham where we talked about the city curriculum, which affects my constituency. At key stages 1 and 2 in particular, teachers talk about local landmarks and history and incorporate such work. We encourage schools to continue to do that.

Ashok Kumar: The Minister said that the abolition of slavery would be addressed, so in that spirit may I make a plea for the history of black and Asian people in this country? It is also part and parcel of our history, but has never been discussed. Young people would benefit from it in their education.

Parmjit Dhanda: Those matters were considered recently as part of the Ajegbo report, of which my hon. Friend may be aware. He and I are very much part and parcel of British life these days, but he is right and, following our review, the slave trade, the British empire, the holocaust and the two world wars will all be essential elements of the key stage 3 curriculum. That is the right way forward: to learn about British life and our history, but also about migration and immigration in the context of the slave trade. It is important that we do so.

Literacy and Numeracy Standards

Laurence Robertson: What recent assessment he has made of the literacy and numeracy standards of 11-year-olds.

Jim Knight: Last year 79 per cent. of pupils achieved the target level 4 or more in English and 76 per cent. did so in mathematics. This represents a significant improvement in the standards of literacy and numeracy in schools compared with, say, 1997 when fewer than two thirds of pupils reached the target level in either subject.
	Under this Government, schools in Tewkesbury, the hon. Gentleman's constituency, have made a 14 percentage point improvement for 11-year-olds and a 16 percentage point increase in maths at the same level.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Minister for that response, which demonstrates how good teaching in Tewkesbury is. However, is it not the case that the increase in standards over the past few years has rather plateaued, and the children who are losing out are those from poorer backgrounds? Given that the previous Prime Minister was elected on the pledge of being tough on not only crime but the causes of crime, rather than looking to build more prisons, would it not be better to tackle the problems that are experienced by the poorest members of society who fail at 11, go on to play truant and then go on to prison? The prisons are full of people who are illiterate or innumerate so, after 10 years of Labour Government, should they not be doing rather better?

Jim Knight: I am not the Prisons Minister—right now anyway.  [ Laughter. ] I will therefore not comment on much of that.
	The hon. Gentleman talked about plateauing, but he may not know that, in 1996, the National Foundation for Educational Research reported that there had been no improvement in primary standards for 50 years. We have seen significant improvements in the last 10 years that we should celebrate, and the new Prime Minister in his Mansion house speech last week talked about measures that he wants to see us implement in the future to attack some of the problems regarding the children who still need to improve and the narrowing of attainment gaps around income, ethnicity and gender. For example, he talked about the new learning credit that will mean that those on low income receive the support that they need.

Barry Sheerman: Before my hon. Friend becomes Prisons Minister or something else, will he ensure that further research is done on not only the improved literacy and numeracy results, but on the really troubling problems in some areas of selective education where grammar schools exist and the overall package of education is not very good for the entirety of the population? In fact, many of the struggling young people mentioned by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) do very badly in those areas.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend hits upon a very interesting question. I know that it is the subject of much research in the academic community, and I looked at some from the university of York fairly recently that reinforces the point that he makes. Those in selective areas who are not selected into grammar schools suffer from poor outcomes and that is why the Government remain opposed to any new forms of selection and why some Members on the Opposition Front Bench agree with us.

Robert Wilson: Who does the Minister hold responsible for the decline in the performance of young working-class white children in our schools? Does he take any responsibility for the policies of the last 10 years that have led to that decline?

Jim Knight: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills and, from his close analysis of statistics, he should be aware of the fact that, although we have concerns about the white working-class boys whose standards have improved but are still not good enough, their improvement is above the national average. We are starting to see the gap narrowed. With, for example, the measures outlined in Christine Gilbert's review of personalised learning that we published at the beginning of the year and with some of the measures on personalisation and catch-up and stretch that the Prime Minister talked about in his Mansion house speech, we are confident that we will start to address the problem more effectively.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Minister talked about narrowing gaps and we have seen a real and steady narrowing of the gap in key stage 2 achievement of boys and girls in writing. I am concerned, however, that the gap in reading is more variable from year to year; it seems to me that boys do better in years in which the books that they like to read are published. Does he have any proposals to do more to engage boys with reading so that they can properly compete towards the end of primary school?

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend makes an important point about the most persistent gender gap being that relating to boys' reading. We have the national year of reading next year, the roll-out of the every child a reader programme and the success of the reading recovery programmes. We want to see those things expanded to address the persistence of that gap. Naturally, if people are struggling with their reading, in time they will be struggling with the whole of the curriculum, because it is difficult to learn without the ability to read well.

Nick Gibb: In spite of the moderate improvements in standards in primary schools over the last decade, which the Minister referred to and which I acknowledge, 40 per cent. of 11-year-olds still leave primary school without having mastered the basics of reading, writing and maths. Synthetic phonics—[Hon. Members: "Hooray!"] They expected me to say that. Synthetic phonics will clearly help to improve literacy, but the TIMSS—the trends in international mathematics and science study—survey, showed that only 5 per cent. of 14-year-olds in the UK achieved the advanced level in the TIMSS mathematics assessment compared with 44 per cent. of 14-year-olds in Singapore. Does the Minister share my view that, having started to roll back the failed progressive approaches to teaching reading, we need to look closely at how maths is taught in primary schools to ensure that it follows tried and tested methods and international best practice?

Jim Knight: The Prime Minister is ahead of the hon. Gentleman. He has already announced the every child counts programme, which involves direct intervention to build on the sorts of things that we have learned have been successful with the every child a reader programme and to apply those same things to maths. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that even one of our harshest critics, Professor Alan Smithers, acknowledges that at primary school level our best improvement is in maths. The hon. Gentleman quoted some perhaps slightly misleading statistics. In maths, the figure is up 17 points, meaning that 76 per cent. are reaching the national standard at 11. That is an impressive improvement given the plateauing for 50 years that I talked about earlier.

SEAL Programme

Graham Allen: What progress has been made in rolling out the social, emotional aspects of learning programme in secondary schools (a) in Nottingham and (b) elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.

Jim Knight: I was delighted to see the progress made by Nottingham local authority in rolling out the primary SEAL programme when I visited my hon. Friend's constituency with him earlier this year. It is holding a SEAL launch for all its secondary schools this week, and it has already selected four schools to become leading practice schools to support others to implement SEAL effectively. All local authorities were briefed last month on the implementation strategy for the programme and are currently selecting which schools to support in the first year.

Graham Allen: Teaching the social and emotional aspects of learning at secondary level will help to break the intergenerational cycle of educational deprivation in places such as Nottingham by reducing teen pregnancies and helping youngsters to maintain personal and family relationships and responsibilities and to understand life choices. Will the Minister please underline the fact that local education authorities, especially in areas of chronic underachievement in education, do not need to wait for further guidance and instructions from his Department, but should crack on and implement secondary SEAL so that it can have an impact on the life chances of young people who need that opportunity?

Jim Knight: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his detailed work in this area and for relating that strongly to his constituency. He makes sure that I keep an eye on Nottingham and I will continue to do so in looking at the roll-out. I do think that we can just get on with implementing the SEAL programme in secondary schools. I have made sure that we have increased to 20 per cent. the number of secondary schools that will have support for SEAL in the first year starting in September and I want to see that accelerate as quickly as possible.

Looked-after Children

Julie Morgan: What plans the Government have to promote the improved educational attainment of children and young people in care.

Jim Cunningham: How much he has allocated for the provision of individual tutoring for looked-after children in 2007-08.

Alan Johnson: The White Paper that was published last week, "Care Matters: Time for Change", sets out an ambitious agenda for improving the lives of children in care, with an additional investment of more than £305 million. Its proposals include improving the education of children in care through a £500 educational allowance for each child in care falling behind at school, putting the designated teacher on a statutory footing to improve provision in schools, appointing virtual school heads to oversee the children's education, and a £2,000 university bursary. In relation to individual tutoring, aside from the progression pilot that is taking place in 10 local authority areas, the HSBC Global Education Trust announced a £1 million allocation for one-to-one tutoring for children in care as part of the White Paper launch.

Julie Morgan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply and congratulate him on the work that he is doing in this respect. I know that he is aware that many children in care say that no one turns up to their parents evenings or goes to their school plays and sports days. What can he do so that those children get the individual care and attention that they need to attain educationally?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the problems for children in care is that the state is not a very good parent. The state ought to be acting more as if it were a natural parent. As we discovered through the most extensive consultation, including with children in care and young people—often in prison—who had passed through the care system, such children did not have a champion. Having a designated teacher and lead professional at every level is key to solving the problem. The production of the White Paper was an extremely important step, but until we actually deliver by changing a situation in which the most vulnerable in our society are treated appallingly, we cannot truly say that we are a civilised society.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we support carers, especially those who look after children in care? If a child has an unsettled home life, it does not exactly encourage them to study and they feel abandoned.

Alan Johnson: I agree, but the White Paper identifies the problem that we allow children to slip into care too easily when there are often friends and family who could look after them. Once children slip into care, they are moved around too much. None of these problems is the fault of the fabulous people on the front line who foster children. It is key that the first placement is the right placement so that children are not moved around too often. If they move around too often, they move school too often, which means, especially if they move during their GCSE years, that they fail at education. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. I hope that he accepts that the White Paper includes a way forward.

John Bercow: I welcome very much what the Secretary of State says. However, many children in care suffer from speech, language and communication impairments and have special educational needs. What is he doing to ensure not only that such children who have statements of special educational needs receive the appropriate therapy, but that such children on school action and school action-plus receive speech and language therapy on the scale and with the intensity required so that they are not at the mercy of cash-strapped primary care trusts?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue, as he has done before. When he reads the White Paper, I hope that he agrees with the focus on a care strategy for each individual child in care, including those with such specific difficulties. Things are difficult enough for children with those problems who are in a settled family. Children in care do not have the same support as them and the same champions who can go to school to argue their case. That is why the care strategy and the lead professional are key to resolving that problem for children in care, as well as many others.

Sarah Teather: Further to the answer that the Secretary of State gave a moment ago to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) about kinship carers, when the Green Paper was published, the Secretary of State suggested that he would be examining improving the allowances and support for such carers. However, although the White Paper acknowledges the financial pressures on grandparents especially, it is rather vague about giving a commitment to improving allowances and on any specifics of the support that he would recommend. Is he still committed to improving that package and, if so, how will he do that?

Alan Johnson: Yes, I am. I am sorry that that is a bit vague in the White Paper. I hope that it will become clearer as we take the policy through because it is important. Grandparents in particular have a huge role to play. As, thankfully, people are healthier and living longer, there is a question of how we can use grandparents to greater effect.
	None of these problems is really to do with money. As Martin Narey, the head of Barnardo's says, this is one of the few areas in which the problem is not cash and finance, but the system. We have put in another £305 million. We will put more money in place to help kinship carers through local authorities so that we get this right. We are spending £2 billion already. The problem is the system, so if extra finance is required, we need to provide that.

Kerry McCarthy: The White Paper says that nearly 10 per cent. of children in care over the age of 10 are cautioned or convicted of a criminal offence in an average year. Given that, will he tell me what discussions Ministers in the Department have had with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about ensuring continuity of education for children who end up spending a period in custody?

Alan Johnson: As is the case for so many other issues in the White Paper, local authorities have to accept responsibility right the way through. We propose—this will take legislation—that children should remain in care for longer, instead of being pushed out at 16, and that they should be able to stay with adoptive parents until they are 21. In addition, they will have an individual counsellor looking after them until they are 25. On children who are unfortunate enough to go through the criminal justice system, we are talking to colleagues in the Ministry of Justice about how we can co-ordinate action, but it needs to be joined up at local authority level. That is why I say that we could not have taken any of those measures without "Every Child Matters"; it provides the foundation for us to build on, so that we can properly tackle the issue.

David Willetts: I am sure that the whole House will wish the Secretary of State well, whatever today holds for him. May I say that I, personally, have always appreciated the courtesy and consideration that he has shown to me? I am sure that the White Paper on children in care will be one of the achievements in which he takes greatest pride. Indeed, its words on looked-after children may have a particular relevance to some Ministers present today. I remind the Secretary of State that it says:
	"Far too many find themselves in placements which do not meet their needs, resulting in a high level of instability."
	It is also important to them to know
	"details about the placements in advance, in order that they can be more meaningfully involved in deciding where they will live."
	May I invite the Secretary of State warmly to endorse those sentiments, and does he perhaps regret that he has spent only 13 months in his most recent placement?

Alan Johnson: I cannot speculate on what announcements might be made later, but the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know—this is absolutely true—that there was a power failure at the Department for Education and Skills this morning. All the lifts and the lights are out, so the power seems to be seeping away. The hon. Gentleman is very kind. I think that he is one of the most intelligent, thoughtful Members of Parliament anywhere in the House. I see that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who was in the Chamber, has now disappeared, but I think that the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) was absolutely right in what he said on selection in his speech to the CBI a couple of weeks ago. All I can say about where we might go is that I have been in three Cabinet positions, and my shadow on every occasion has been the hon. Gentleman, so wherever I am going, I am pretty sure that he is coming with me.

Apprenticeships

Diana Johnson: How many apprenticeship places have been created for 16 and 17-year-olds in Hull since 1997; and what plans he has for provision in the future.

Phil Hope: Some 4,400 young people have started an apprenticeship in the city of Hull since 2001. Figures are not available at local authority level for the years before that. Nationally, the apprenticeship programme goes from strength to strength. We have trebled the numbers in learning since 1997, and 100,000 people a year complete an apprenticeship. The completion rate now stands at almost 60 per cent. We want to expand the programme further so that by 2013 any suitably qualified young person will be entitled to an apprenticeship place.

Diana Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, and I ask him to join me in congratulating Shaun Anderson from Hull, who was the runner-up in the personal achiever section of the apprenticeship awards. Will he confirm that the investment in our young people and the commitment made to them through apprenticeships is in marked contrast to the sniping and negative comments of the Opposition?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I attended the apprenticeship awards gala evening last Wednesday at which Shaun's achievements and those of many other young people were recognised and celebrated. It was not only apprentices who attended but the people who trained them, employers from Hull and across the country, and sponsoring companies such as British Gas, BAE Systems, City and Guilds, BT and many others. It is good that we can celebrate success not only in the number of young people taking up apprenticeships but in the commitment and hard work that they and their supporters demonstrate. It would be helpful if the Opposition, instead of running down that successful system, could for once start to show support and celebrate the apprenticeship system.

David Chaytor: The complete destruction of the apprenticeship system during the dark ages of the Tory years was an act of wanton vandalism, and it is a great tribute to the Government that there has been a huge increase in numbers. Does my hon. Friend accept, however, that there is still more work to be done to improve completion rates and that part of the solution is to increase the portability of apprenticeships? What plans does he have to do precisely that?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we have trebled the numbers. Five or six years ago, the completion rate was as low as 24 per cent., but I am delighted that a focus on the problem means that 60 per cent. of young people are now completing their apprenticeships. That is an amazing step forward, and it aligns us with our competitors in France, Germany and other parts of the European Union. We have to do even better, however, so we will continue to drive the programme forward, using innovations such as those that he has described to run the apprenticeships system, to ensure that more young people complete apprenticeships. Indeed, we have a target of 400,000 young people a year undertaking apprenticeships by 2020. That is the Leitch ambition, and it is one that we share.

Children's Centres

Kitty Ussher: What assessment he has made of the impact that children's centres are having on levels of inequality among young children.

Beverley Hughes: An evaluation strategy for children's centres is being developed, and the rigorous and independent national evaluation of Sure Start is monitoring Sure Start local programmes as they transform into children's centres. In 2005, emerging findings highlighted the fact that there were already positive overall effects on parenting and on child outcomes for most families in those very disadvantaged areas. They also identified the need to work harder to reach and support the most disadvantaged families. We have taken steps to ensure that children's centres do so.

Kitty Ussher: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, and I am glad that a proper evaluation of the impact of children's centres on families is under way. May I probe her a little further specifically on child inequality? Is there any evidence that areas with children's centres have greater or less child inequality than similar areas that do not have children's centres?

Beverley Hughes: As part of the series of reports in the national evaluation of Sure Start, four further reports will be published today. Research in one report shows faster reductions in child poverty in Sure Start areas compared with England as a whole. That research looked at local programmes over five years, and identified improvements which, however, we cannot correlate directly with Sure Start, because a number of other factors in those areas need to be taken into account. None the less, that is encouraging because in Sure Start areas, as I have said, there are greater decreases in the percentage of children living in workless households, and improvements in child health, with fewer respiratory illnesses and severe injuries, which reflects the better integration of services in Sure Start areas.

Vincent Cable: While it is undoubtedly true that Sure Start education centres are popular and successful, does the Minister acknowledge the Birkbeck research in that evaluation programme, which clearly shows that the centres do not reduce inequality, because they do not address the differing language skills of different social classes?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a high level of satisfaction with children's centres. In another piece of research, 90 per cent. of parents were very satisfied, and 9 per cent. were quite satisfied with them. Parents certainly believe that they are getting what they need for their children from children's centres. Language acquisition is an important part of the redevelopment of the early years foundation stage which, as he will know, will be delivered in any setting for an early-years child from nought to five. That focus on communication, literacy and language is a vital part of ensuring that children develop those skills and it will enhance their well-being as a whole.

Andy Reed: Although the evaluation is important, I am sure that, like me, my right hon. Friend has talked to parents who think those centres have changed their lives completely. However, I wish to pursue the point about those who are most disadvantaged. While the children's centres in my Loughborough constituency have reached many of the disadvantaged, the most disadvantaged are probably still not being targeted and extra work is being done to bring them in. Can she explain in a little more detail what measures are being taken to reach out even further to those who would benefit most from the vast array of services provided through the children's centres in Loughborough?

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is right. In tackling inequality, which is the next big challenge for all public services, not just children's centres, the crucial question for us is how those public service professionals, health visitors and so on can reach the people who are the most disadvantaged, who will not find their way to services voluntarily or easily for all kinds of reasons. With reference to children's centres, we have issued clear guidance on how that outreach work needs to be done. Universal services such as health visitors, which are non-stigmatising and go to every household when a child is born, have a key role to play. Building on that role, we have funded the nurse-led family partnerships, which are using specialist health visitors with first-time very young parents, often teenage parents, to work with them not just for the first few weeks, but from pregnancy right through until children are two years old and more. They, too, will work through children's centres and provide a strong lead as to how we can develop this important outreach approach.

Julie Kirkbride: The Minister will be aware of a number of reports out in recent weeks showing that social mobility in the United Kingdom has declined to the point that it is the worst of any developed country where it is measured. Given that there are many advantages to the Sure Start programme, but that a great deal of public money is spent on it, is she prepared to make any claim as to how the Sure Start programme might improve social mobility for our fellow citizens in the future?

Beverley Hughes: First, it is important to put the record straight. In fact, social mobility started to decline in the 1980s and 1990s under the Conservative Government. What we have managed to do so far, which is not enough for this Government, is to halt that decline. That is the first stage in reversing the decline in social mobility, which is our objective. Secondly, the focus on early years, which this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister should give consideration to other hon. Members who are seeking to speak.

Kali Mountford: Local Liberal Democrat councillors have welcomed children's centres as a part of tackling child poverty, but Tory councillors have said that they would close children's centres unless they were a proven success. That has caused concern for local parents. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House on what basis councillors would be able to close children's centres, and give my constituents some reassurance?

Beverley Hughes: Just in case any councils in the future thought they might be able to reverse the trend, we have enshrined the integration of services for the early years though children's centres in legislation in the Childcare Act 2006, which received Royal Assent in July last year.

Anne McIntosh: Without commenting on the right hon. Lady's potential for upward mobility later today, may I ask how she responds to the conclusions of the Sutton Trust report, which found that social mobility has declined to its lowest level in the UK for 20 years, and the National Audit Office's report in December last year, which found that of the children's centres visited, only nine out of 30 actively targeted the harder to reach? Does she agree that her end of term report will read, "The Government must try harder"?

Beverley Hughes: We made it clear from the outset, which is why we have put all the phase 1 children's centres in the most disadvantaged areas, that we see that as an essential long-term programme focusing on the youngest children, directly reducing child poverty and improving social mobility. We also know that what happens in practice depends very much on the actions of people in those children's centres. We have made it clear in subsequent guidance that outreach must remain a fundamental element of the children's centre programme, and that it must be strengthened. Our consultants are working to ensure that that happens in practice.

Specialist Diploma

Jeff Ennis: How many secondary schools he expects to participate in the delivery of the 14-19 specialist diploma; and if he will make a statement.

Phil Hope: Eventually all schools and colleges will offer an entitlement to the diplomas. We will start in September 2008 on a small scale. On 28 March, we announced the first 145 consortiums across the 97 local authorities that have been given approval to offer one or more of the first five 14-19 diplomas from September 2008. Within those consortiums, 800 secondary schools have said that they will be either feeder institutions to other consortium partners or offer diplomas themselves.

Jeff Ennis: In a recent YouGov poll, 65 per cent. of secondary schoolteachers said that they believe that the new diplomas will simply be training programmes leading to low-paid jobs for non-academic students. Will the Minister dispel that view, and does he agree that the prime objective of diplomas must be to bring about a parity of esteem between academic and vocational qualifications?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right that that myth is completely erroneous. I agree with the Edge Foundation, which conducted the survey. It said that
	"diplomas should be highly attractive to students of all aptitudes and abilities, including the most able. They should offer a genuine alternative to existing GCSEs and A levels."
	We are investing a lot of money in the new diplomas to allow young people to choose a vocational route that will take them through either to higher education—for example, an engineering degree—or to work. The diplomas will attract talented young people from across the system.

John Hayes: The Edge Foundation also said that
	"The current time-scales are unrealistic—some would say dishonest".
	The Education and Skills Committee has considered the matter in detail. It said that
	"the development work has sometimes been uncomfortably compressed",
	and it doubted whether those in charge have a clear sense of the diploma's purpose.
	The Minister must know that the doubts referred to by the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) are widespread. The House expects him today to give an absolute assurance on the consistency, rigour and capacity of schools to deliver the diplomas—or does he still share the Secretary of State's chilling view that the diplomas may go horribly wrong?

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman has moved from slagging off the apprenticeship system to running down the diploma system. He must learn that he is not doing himself or his party any favours by running down the education system and the young people within it. We have implemented a gateway of quality: 38,000 students will start those diplomas, and an extra £50 million will go into work force development. Those young people will study towards high-quality diplomas involving a combination of practical and academic learning, which will be the envy of countries across the world.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Law Officers

David Jones: If he will make a statement on the future role of the Law Officers.

Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the future role of the Law Officers.

Mike O'Brien: Questions 21 and 23 are identical, and I can imagine why they were tabled, although I think that today is a little bit early.
	The future of the Law Officers will no doubt be decided by the new Prime Minister, and in so far as the Law Officers' advice to Parliament is concerned, by this House. I understand that the Constitutional Affairs Committee is currently considering those issues, and we will read its report with interest.

David Jones: The Solicitor-General will be aware that in his letter of resignation to the outgoing Prime Minister, the Attorney-General referred to "the host of challenges" that he had faced in that office. Does the Solicitor-General agree that those challenges are and have for centuries been inherent in that role and that the best way to deal with them is to meet them head on and not to use them as excuses for changing the nature of that office? If so, will he communicate that view to the new Prime Minister?

Mike O'Brien: My noble Friend Lord Goldsmith has performed those duties by facing some of the difficult decisions that he has had to make on a series of issues head on. He has dealt with those decisions with a great deal of integrity. He has taken a lot of flak, particularly from those in certain galleries, about those issues, but he has done so with a level of integrity. In future, Law Officers will continue to display seriousness about the law, respect for the law and integrity in dealing with the law.

Andrew Robathan: The Solicitor-General believes, rightly, that Law Officers should be accountable to the Houses of Parliament, particularly to the House of Commons, whereas the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has taken a somewhat different view. We have discussed collective responsibility with the right hon. and learned Lady in the past—she was of course the Solicitor-General's predecessor—and had disagreements. Now that she is deputy leader of the Labour party, chairman of the Labour party and reportedly going to be Leader of the House, whose view does he think may prevail?

Mike O'Brien: As I have already said, we are looking forward with interest to the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend made some interesting and weighty contributions to the debate about the future of the Law Officers. We should remember that the Law Officers have a role in advising this House, and we will look to see what view the House and the new Prime Minister take on what their future should be.

Rob Marris: Could my hon. and learned Friend clarify the constitutional conventions and rules of the respective Houses as to which House the Attorney-General should sit in and which House the Solicitor-General should sit in?

Mike O'Brien: There is not really a convention about that—it is a matter of how the Prime Minister decides that he wishes to deal with these matters. I suppose that there are certain advantages in having one of the Law Officers in each House, but that has not always been the case. I remember that when I came into the House in the 1990s both Law Officers were in this House.

David Howarth: Will the Solicitor-General advise the new Attorney-General to give up the seemingly new practice of attending Cabinet as a matter of course? Does not that appear to put the Attorney-General in the position of being too close to the Government to advise objectively on matters such as the war in Iraq and the dropping of the prosecution of BAE?

Mike O'Brien: That will be a matter for the new Attorney-General to consider. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Goldsmith took the view that there were certain advantages in his attending Cabinet because he was then aware of what was happening as it was happening and was able to use the opportunity to talk to other Cabinet members. However, the new Attorney-General will no doubt consider the issues and take a view on whether he should attend.

Simon Hughes: May I thank the Solicitor-General and the outgoing Attorney-General for their courtesy at all times during the previous Administration, whatever our differences of view on certain issues? Will he accept, and perhaps pass on, a couple of suggestions? First, if, in future, Law Officers give advice that is then prayed in aid in order to influence a vote here, that should become public, not be kept private. Secondly, while responsibility for prosecutions should of course remain with somebody accountable to Parliament, there should be an exemption if the prosecutions are of other parliamentarians or civil servants, because that requires an independent decision, not a political one.

Mike O'Brien: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments, which I will certainly pass on to my right hon. and noble Friend. Ministers who go to a lawyer for legal advice want to know that that advice will be frank, accurate and confidential, as indeed does anyone. It becomes very difficult for people to go to their lawyer if they think that that advice will be immediately made public. In certain circumstances, it can be made public, but we need to consider that with a great deal of care. As for the role of Law Officers in relation to certain prosecutions, the safeguards in the way in which such decisions are taken will, I hope, prove in due course to be adequate.

Dominic Grieve: May I first echo the Solicitor-General's words about the Attorney-General and extend my thanks to him for the way in which he has communicated with me? I have always taken the view that the Attorney-General discharged his duties with integrity and fortitude. I thank the Solicitor-General, too, for what he has done and I hope that we may continue to see him at the Dispatch Box.
	Let me consider the future role of the Law Officers. In response to questions on 26 April, the Solicitor-General made it clear that he believed that the Law Officers must be accountable to their several Houses of Parliament, whether they are in the House of Lords or the House of Commons. Does not it follow that, if there were any suggestion that that accountability should be removed, the Solicitor-General, if he is still in post, would oppose it and that, if it were forced through, his position would be untenable and he would have to resign?

Mike O'Brien: The Constitutional Affairs Committee is examining those matters and we will consider its views with great care and listen to the arguments that its members present. Doubtless the new Prime Minister will take a view on the matter in due course. Those views will have to be given a great deal of weight and regard.

Media Reporting (Criminal Cases)

Lynda Waltho: What steps he is taking to ensure that media reporting does not prejudice fair trials; and if he will make a statement.

Mike O'Brien: The Attorney-General has in the past issued advice to the media about reporting proceedings, including specific advice on coverage of individual cases, to help to avoid potential prejudice of fair trials. The right to a fair trial has to be balanced with the qualified right to freedom of expression under the European convention on human rights. The public have a right to be kept informed of developments in cases and there must be a substantial risk of serious prejudice to proceedings for there to be any interference with that right.

Lynda Waltho: The Fawcett Society estimates that less than 15 per cent. of rape is reported, and a major influence on whether someone—especially a woman—proceeds with her case is believed to be the prospect of adverse reporting and the naming, and almost shaming, of her past life. What further steps can my hon. and learned Friend take to guarantee anonymity in those cases?

Mike O'Brien: Protecting the anonymity of complainants in rape cases is enormously important. More women—and, indeed, men—who are victims of rape are reporting the incidents, and that is positive. However, rape is difficult to prove, especially in cases in which those involved knew each other and the central issue is consent. It is therefore important that the Law Officers respond cautiously to requests to enable the courts to publish names. Indeed, such a request has been made in the Warren Blackwell case. We are anxious to ensure that those who are considering reporting rape can know that they retain an appropriate level of anonymity and that their names will not be published in newspapers unnecessarily.

William Cash: Does the Solicitor-General agree that one of the problems that we have experienced with applying the European convention on human rights is associated with the role of the Attorney-General? In the past few years, we have relied far too much on questions relating to the interpretation of the law on human rights. If we are to have a new Attorney-General, he should not only be in the House of Commons, but he should not be totally committed to the European convention on human rights in all its shapes and forms.

Mike O'Brien: As one of the Ministers who took through the Human Rights Act 1998 and introduced the convention to law, may I defend it, especially in the context of the question, which is, to some extent, about the freedom of the press? The Human Rights Act enshrines some of those freedoms. Before the hon. Gentleman starts to say that he wishes to remove them from people like those who sit in the Press Gallery, he should exercise a great deal of caution. There are protections that we want to keep.

Speaker's Statement

Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the House that yesterday I received a letter from Sir Philip Mawer, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, informing me that he wishes to step down from the appointment on 31 December 2007. By that date, Sir Philip will have served for almost six years. He records in his letter that he counts it a great privilege to have been able to serve the House in such a worthwhile capacity. There will be an opportunity for Members to express their appreciation at a future date. I shall arrange for a copy of his letter to be placed in the Library.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?

Jack Straw: rose—

Peter Bone: Are you still the Leader of the House?

Jack Straw: I am the Leader of the House; it is absolutely true. I said last week that I was ready to go on and on and on, and here I am.
	The business for the week commencing 2 July will be as follows:
	Monday 2 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Statistics and Registration Service Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2003 (Commencement No. 2) Order 2007, followed by a motion to approve a European Document relating to global navigation systems.
	Tuesday 3 July—Opposition day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled "Access to NHS Services", followed by a debate entitled "Crisis in Pensions". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 4 July—Second Reading of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 5 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill  [Lords].
	Friday 6 July—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 9 July will include:
	Monday 9 July—Estimates [3rd allotted day]. At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Tuesday 10 July—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2007, followed by Second Reading of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Bill  [Lords].
	Wednesday 11 July—Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 12 July—Remaining stages of the Further Education and Training Bill  [Lords].
	Friday 13 July—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall on 12 and 19 July will be:
	Thursday 12 July—A debate on the report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee on the implementation of the Carter review of legal aid.
	Thursday 19 July—A debate on the Government response to the all-party parliamentary group report on anti-Semitism.

Theresa May: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the future business for what I am now confident will be the last time. He has always been courteous in his dealing with me, and he has always been prepared to stand above party politics in the interest of the House. According to the BBC, his successor as Leader of the House is likely to be the deputy leader and chairman of the Labour party. I know that we women can multi-task, but "three-hats Harman" is perhaps taking it a bit too far! The new Prime Minister says that he wants to strengthen Parliament, yet he is appointing a part-time Leader of the House whose two other jobs are party political positions. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is acceptable in the interests of the House?
	Picking up on the statement that the Speaker has just made, I should like to thank Sir Philip Mawer for all the work that he has done as Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It is an important role. Will the Leader of the House confirm that there will not be an interregnum before his successor is appointed, as there has been with the chairmanship of the Committee on Standards in Public Life?
	According to Sky News, there will be a ministerial statement to the House on Monday on one of the Prime Minister's big ideas, yet the Leader of the House did not mention it when he announced the forthcoming business. The Prime Minister says that he will respect Parliament. Will the Leader of the House assure us that the media are not being informed of House business before hon. Members?
	This week, the Ministry of Justice published the 54th criminal justice Bill since Labour came to power. With only four weeks until the House rises, the Bill has little chance of proper scrutiny before the end of this Session, and it was published just days before the Home and Justice Secretaries left their jobs. Delivering a Bill written by Lord Falconer must be the ultimate hospital pass. As it appears that the Leader of the House will be the next Justice Secretary, will he make a statement on the Bill's timetable?
	The Government have created 3,000 new criminal offences, but have not expanded prison capacity to match. The criminal justice Bill will therefore introduce greater use of cautions, end suspended sentences in magistrates courts and limit jail terms for repeat offenders. After five Home Secretaries, 54 criminal justice Bills and 3,000 new criminal offences, the Government still do not have a clue. So much for being "tough on crime". Can we have a debate on the crisis in the criminal justice system?
	According to research published this week, Home Office police targets and performance management have increased bureaucracy and stifled innovation. At any one time, one fifth of officers are not available for operational duties. Nearly three quarters of superintendents believe that Home Office reporting requirements have damaged the quality of policing. So much for trusting front-line professionals. Can we have a debate on the role of Home Office targets in policing?
	Official figures released this week show that more and more schools are being forced to take back unruly pupils after deciding to exclude them. Almost a quarter of excluded pupils successfully challenged their exclusions. That is a 20 per cent. increase since Labour came to power. So much for trusting teachers. Can we have a debate on school discipline?
	The Minister for Schools has said that the Government will raise £80 million by imposing a 5 per cent. levy on schools with budget surpluses. The levy will apply whether or not the money is earmarked for future projects. So much for trusting head teachers. Can we have a debate on trusting schools to run themselves, free from Government interference?
	After 10 years of Labour, surely those examples tell their own story. The new Prime Minister might spin that he is a change, that he respects Parliament and that he trusts the people. He still believes, however, that the man in Whitehall knows best. That is not a "new kind of politics"; it is just same old Labour.

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her further welcome to me—

Andrew Robathan: Half an hour to go.

Jack Straw: No, I think that it might be longer. As I said, I really enjoy this job, so I am happy to go on and on and on. I know enough about reshuffles to know that they are not over till they are over. I shall certainly not comment on any dispositions that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is recommending to Her Majesty the Queen.
	In the normal ecumenical spirit that I have sought to adopt during these proceedings, may I say that I was looking forward very much to some jokes at the end of the right hon. Lady's speech? I thought that she had got the jokes up to speed in the previous two business questions. I am really sorry to have missed them on this occasion, but if I come back next week, she can do them then.
	May I join the right hon. Lady in paying tribute to Sir Philip Mawer, who has conducted himself, in a position of some great challenge, with considerable dignity, integrity and skill? I knew Sir Philip before he took the job on, and he has been a fine person to fulfil the duties. On the issue of the appointment, I will do my best to ensure that there is no interregnum, as the right hon. Lady puts it.
	The right hon. Lady made some pejorative remarks about some reports on the television news, which, I am afraid, I have not seen; I was busy preparing for business questions. I, too, have a party card and I, too, am a partisan politician, as is everybody in the House, and successive Leaders of the House, on both sides, have shown that it is perfectly possible to acknowledge and follow the twin duties of Leader of the House—to represent the Government to the House, and the House to the Government, as well as separately fulfilling their other duties. As she well knows, I have had other Government duties, including House of Lords reform, party funding and the chairmanship of many Cabinet Committees, so such things are possible.
	On the issue of statements, we will follow the provisions that I have introduced to give as early notice as possible of statements, which is a further indication of the way in which the Government have sought better to respect Parliament and to ensure that the House is the first to know of major, and indeed minor, announcements.
	The right hon. Lady then went on to discuss the 54th criminal justice Bill. Well, it is a nice line. We know which Bills the Conservatives rubbished as gimmicks at the time, including the first major criminal justice Bill, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which contained measures that have made a huge difference to constituents, such as the reforms of youth justice, the introduction of antisocial behaviour orders and much else. The question for the Conservative party is whether it would repeal those measures in the unlikely event that it returned to power.
	As for our record on crime and disorder, I would be delighted to debate it at any time. We have 14,000 extra police officers and police officer numbers are going up, when they went down under the Conservatives. Crime has fallen by more than 30 per cent. when it doubled under the Conservatives. It is a record of which we shall be proud.
	The right hon. Lady asked about exclusions and school discipline. Of course, it is up to her if she wants to have a debate. I have given her a lot of comradely advice about how she can make better use of Opposition days: there is one suggestion.
	As for respect for Parliament, let it be said that in the past 10 years we have introduced many measures, some of them recited in the latest Modernisation Committee report, better to strengthen the role of this House. I hope that the Committee's report will be implemented.

Martyn Jones: Will my right hon. Friend find time urgently to debate the abuse of the privilege of press passes? He will no doubt be aware that I had to go to the High Court two weeks ago to obtain redress for an article in  The Mail on Sunday by Simon Walters, the holder of a press pass. It is an abuse of privilege for a journalist—if one may go so far as to call him that—to use a press pass to get tittle-tattle from security guards, police and other employees in the House to print lies about Members of Parliament.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. I am aware that he succeeded in an action against Associated Newspapers. If he does have serious complaints about the issue of passes, I suggest that he refers them to the appropriate House Committee.

David Heath: As a former member of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I also pay tribute to Sir Philip Mawer and the excellent work that he has done in recent years. The Steward of the Chiltern hundreds yesterday said that it was the end, but of course it is only the closing of one chapter and the opening of another, although some of us think that it is odd that we have gone from "Great Expectations" to "Bleak House" in just 10 years.
	There are still several items on the agenda, and the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) mentioned the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. I notice that the Leader of the House did not give us the timetable for that. The right hon. Lady did not mention the scale of the Bill, which has 235 pages, 152 pages of explanatory notes and 14 pages of regulatory impact assessment. How on earth is the House intended to give proper scrutiny to another criminal justice Bill when it will not be introduced until the second half of July for Second Reading? If all of this criminal justice legislation is so good, can the Leader of the House please explain why it needs amending within the year?

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Heath: I have not finished.
	We had a valuable statement from the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on flooding, although since then, he has left for warmer climates. I know that there has been increased investment, but the cuts in flood defence spending have been disastrous. The result for many people has been personal catastrophe. May we have a statement from the new Secretary of State on the implications for the once-in-100-years assessments, because they are clearly not correct and we need to revise our flood defences in the light of recent events?
	May we have a statement from the Prime Minister on his position on Iraq? It is important that we know where he stands on that.
	Lastly, I tried to co-operate with the Government last week—I always do, and I am still mulling over the offer of the Wales Office—but does the Leader of the House seriously believe that it is sensible to ignore the request from the outgoing Secretary of State for International Development for a corruption Bill, when the outgoing Attorney-General has said that there is a need for a change in the offences and when we have one on the Order Paper tomorrow? The Corruption Bill is No. 17 on the list of private Members' Bills, has come through the House of Lords and would satisfy the Government's intentions. Will the Leader of the House instruct his colleagues and the Whips not to shout "Object" tomorrow so that we can make progress on enacting proper anti-corruption legislation in this country?

Dennis Skinner: He is begging for a job.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend says, "Offer him a job"—

Dennis Skinner: No, I said he is begging for one. Send that to Philip Mawer.

Jack Straw: And I'll plead guilty—I was worried about my hon. Friend for a second—because I think the hon. Gentleman may be after a job. I made it clear last week that we are a broad church, and I am always happy to co-operate with the hon. Gentleman or anyone else on the Liberal Democrat Benches. I look forward to their seeing the light in due course— [Interruption.] I am trying to be nice to them.
	I apologise to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) for not responding to her question about the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill. She should stop worrying about it. It is a large Bill. It will be properly examined by the House. If it gets its Second Reading, it will go upstairs to be subject to the full Public Bill scrutiny procedure that the House agreed following the Modernisation Committee report—in other words, it has a Select Committee-style hearing for its opening stages. It is also a carry-over Bill. There has been no suggestion whatever within the Government that we are trying to get it through by Prorogation in late October or early November.
	On flooding, I put on the record again our condolences and sorrow in respect of those people who have lost their lives as a result of the flooding, and our huge admiration for those in the fire and rescue services, the armed forces and the police, and the many, many local government and public sector civilian workers, as well as citizens in those areas, who have been working fantastically hard to alleviate the effect of the floods. These floods were literally a once in a century or more event. We do our very best to ensure that there is proper preparation for such events. That has been part of the work of the upgraded civil contingencies secretariat, which was set up a few years ago by one of my successor Home Secretaries.
	Let me deal with funding. Yes, there was a reduction for 2006-07 of £15 million in the Environment Agency's overall flood-risk budget. That was applied to the agency's resource budget, which funds such items as staff costs, operational activities and maintenance. I have been assured that the agency capital budget was not cut, that funding for capital projects for new and improved defences to reduce risk was not affected, and that no current or planned improvement projects were delayed as a result. The reduction has been more than reinstated in the agency's funding for 2007.
	On the Corruption Bill, we have already strengthened anti-corruption measures. We always consider private Members' Bills on their merits, but it does not lie in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman on the one hand to criticise the fact that we have now reached a 54th Bill on criminal law and on the other hand to propose a 55th.

Mary Creagh: May we have an urgent debate on the railways, with particular reference to rail safety and continuity? Despite the best efforts of the British Transport police, the east coast main line, on which Wakefield station sits, has been plagued by theft of copper cable. I have now been contacted by constituents in the Bell Vue area who have a defunct railway bridge—scheduled for demolition in 2015—that is a magnet for antisocial behaviour both from the train-spotters, who gather there to look at trains and who urinate in people's back gardens, and from thieves, who use it as an escape route; I have seen pictures of patio heaters being taken down the railway track. We need to get that sorted out as quickly as possible and to see action from Network Rail.

Jack Straw: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaign to improve rail safety and protect her constituents, railway staff and passengers. I understand the force of her point—indeed, I share it—and I will ensure that the chief executive of Network Rail is made fully aware of her concerns and the need urgently to consider the earlier demolition of that railway bridge.

Michael Spicer: Will Parliament decide on Members' pay and allowances before the summer recess?

Jack Straw: I very much doubt that. The report has not yet been received by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are not entirely clear when it will be, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman, as chairman of the 1922 committee, and those who represent other parties in the House are kept informed about progress.

Keith Vaz: May we have a debate on the operation of the Judicial Appointments Commission? When the chief executive gave evidence to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, she was unable to tell the Committee how many recommendations had been made to the Lord Chancellor for new judges. There is also a very large number of former civil servants from the Department for Constitutional Affairs now working at that body. It is very important that we have an independent Judicial Appointments Commission. May we have either a statement from the next Justice Secretary or a debate in the House about this important matter?

Jack Straw: I understand my right hon. Friend's concern and will pass on his representations to whoever will be the next Justice Secretary.

George Young: In your statement, Mr. Speaker, you indicated that there would be an opportunity at a later date to pay tribute to Sir Philip Mawer. As the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I would like to do that in a handsome way at the appropriate time.
	Reverting to the subject of next week's business, I seek an assurance from the Leader of the House about next Thursday's business statement. By tradition, the Leader of the House has been less partisan and more broad-minded than his colleagues because of his responsibilities to the House as a whole. Apart from the occasional lapse, the current Leader of the House has performed that responsibility with enormous distinction. Does he agree that it will be far more difficult for that convention to be upheld if his successor is also chairman of the Labour party?

Jack Straw: I am not going to speculate on who is or is not likely to be my successor—

John Bercow: It is on the BBC website.

Jack Straw: I am not going to speculate until a formal announcement is approved by Her Majesty the Queen. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) has occasional lapses from the distinguished all-party positions that he holds in the House to being a partisan politician. [Hon. Members: "Never."] I hope he does, and I applaud him for that, because we combine a variety of roles. It is perfectly possible for anyone filling these shoes to combine the very important role of Leader of the House, representing this House inside the Government and ensuring that it is paid proper respect in a practical way, with the fact that all of us here, bar, I think, one Member, came into the House because we were members of a political party and support the partisan causes of that party.

Margaret Moran: Rats! Will my right hon. Friend take action in respect of the water company in Luton which has been responsible for a persistent plague of rats in the Stopsley ward over many years, despite representations from myself and Luton borough council, with which it has failed to co-operate? It refuses to take action to deal with the matter. Will he allow an urgent debate on the responsibilities of water companies on this serious issue?

Jack Straw: I certainly understand the real anxiety and even anger about this problem among my hon. Friend's constituents. She has expressed it today, and I shall look for an opportunity for her to raise the matter in debate, either here or in Westminster Hall. I shall also ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the head of Ofwat are made fully conscious of her concerns.

Nicholas Winterton: I very much share—[Hon. Members: "En francais! Auf deutsch, bitte!"] I very much share the view expressed by the shadow Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who chairs the Standards and Privileges Committee, that there must be some doubt about how the roles of Labour party chairman, deputy party leader and Leader of the House can be balanced. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that the Leader of the House should represent the House as a whole—and all of its Members, not just Labour members? As an associated point, is he prepared to make a statement at this time about the possible merging of the Procedure and Modernisation Committees?

Jack Straw: Je ne sais pas; peut-être. The specific matter that the hon. Gentleman raises is something that must be considered by both the Government and the House. My view is that it may be unusual for the Leader of the House to be a Select Committee Chairman, but that the arrangement has many advantages as well as disadvantages.
	I shall let the House into a secret. The hon. and distinguished Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) will know that we have been trying to spot potential defectors—and over the past year in particular, I have found myself in a great deal of agreement with him, and I know that he shares almost entirely the forensic and incendiary views of his former hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) about the leadership of the Conservative party. I therefore hope very much that he might come over and join us in a closer union.

Martin Salter: It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend has never been in the Leninist vanguard of the movement to modernise the House's creaking and archaic procedures. I hope that the recent report from the Modernisation Committee will be debated shortly, if not next week, as it shows promising signs that he may have embarked on a political journey. Is that the case?

Jack Straw: I have been on a journey all my political life—and I regard it as a slur to suggest that I was never in a Leninist vanguard, as I cut my political teeth at the front of one.

Lorely Burt: May we have a debate, led by whoever is the leader of the proposed new department for business and enterprise, about the future of the motor industry, especially in the west midlands? Ford is considering selling Land Rover and Jaguar, two world-class marques. What will the Government do to ensure that those brands do not suffer the fate that Rover suffered at the hands of the Phoenix four?

Jack Straw: Of course I understand the anxiety felt by many people about the future of the car industry in the west midlands, not least in the constituencies represented by the Deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who has the Longbridge plant in his area. However, the Government have been working extraordinarily hard: after the Rover collapse, for example, we pumped millions of pounds of investment into skills and training for people in the area. I understand that 85 per cent. of those who lost their jobs now have gainful employment.
	The picture in respect of the motor industry is very mixed. Question marks hang over some parts of it, but I very much hope that that is not true of Jaguar, as it produces very fine world-beating motor cars. At the same time, at well over 1.5 million units, British motor industry production as a whole is almost at the level that it was in the 1970s. In addition, 75 per cent, of that production is exported.

Linda Gilroy: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for an urgent debate in Government time to discuss the need for new legislation on the way in which English Heritage confers simple grade II listings on buildings, and on the agency's relationship with climate change? The listing of the Plymouth civic building is incomprehensible, as most of my constituents consider it an eyesore. Moreover, its carbon footprint must be one of the biggest in the city, and in the whole south-west of England.

Jack Straw: I happen to know the building, and I entirely share my hon. Friend's surprise—to say the least—that it should have been listed. When I was chairman of Pimlico school, a glass and concrete monstrosity that failed to work about a year after it was erected, I found myself on the same side as Westminster city council. We had the most extraordinary battle with English Heritage, which wanted to list the building rather than allow it to be knocked down. I am on my hon. Friend's side, and think that she has raised a really important issue. I shall do my best to ensure that there is a debate about it.

Mark Pritchard: Yesterday, former Prime Minister Blair said that the Government had invested a huge amount of money on flood alleviation measures in coastal areas, but what about inland areas such as Shropshire? Is the Leader of the House aware that last week's flooding in places such as Shifnal, Wellington and Kettley has blighted hundreds of lives? May we have a statement in the House covering inland counties, and not just coastal areas?

Jack Straw: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I happen to know a little about the fine county that he represents, and we are well aware that the flooding damage has mainly been to inland rather than coastal areas. It is the responsibility of the Government and the Environment Agency to ensure that there are adequate defences across the country, and we are seeking to fulfil that duty. Of course I appreciate the request for a further statement, and promise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will come to the House as soon as there is a need to do so. I suspect that that may be next week.

Andrew Dismore: Last week, the Law Lords ruled that the protections in the Human Rights Act 1998 did not apply to residents of private care homes who had been placed there by local authorities. The Human Rights Act 1998 (Meaning of Local Authority) Bill would put right that appalling decision, and it resumes its Second Reading tomorrow. If the rumours about my right hon. Friend's future position turn out to be true, will he have a word with himself later this afternoon to see whether he can consider allowing the Bill to go through to Committee stage, so that it might have an opportunity to put right that appalling decision?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows—and as I know from the very lengthy discussions in 1997 and 1998 about the construction of the Human Rights Act—this is a very complicated area. I commend him on his assiduity in bringing his Bill forward, and I have been involved for some weeks in discussions with him about whether it is an appropriate or adequate vehicle for progress on this matter. The problem is not to do with the Bill's fundamental principle, but with its construction, and for the moment we are not convinced that it is suitable. However, I assure my hon. Friend that I will of course be ready to discuss the matter further, whatever capacity I am in.

Michael Fallon: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his refusal last week to allow an early debate on the Scottish block vote? A Minister needs to answer questions about the fact that, from next year, English students will be the only ones in the entire EU who will have to pay the graduate tax if they attend Scottish universities. The right hon. Gentleman did not offer a response last week, but the decision is based on discrimination.

Jack Straw: Without sounding entirely self-serving, I must say that thought that I gave a more than adequate answer last week. The Conservative party opposed devolution in 1997 and 1998, but seems now to have accepted the settlement. Devolution means difference, which I celebrate. Plenty of services delivered in England may be considered to be different and more beneficial than their equivalents in Scotland. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman must remember that Scotland used to be run from London by a proconsul called the Secretary of State for Scotland. Things were done differently then too, but usually worse. The Scottish poll tax is an example: before the 1987 election, the Government of the day refused to impose it in England, but were willing to impose it on Scotland.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House give us an indication of how soon we can have a substantial debate on foreign affairs so that policy on Iraq, the continuing crisis in the middle east and the plight of the Palestinian people can be discussed, and the new Foreign Secretary can tell us in what direction the Government intend to take foreign policy?

Jack Straw: There is, as the House knows, a debate scheduled on 19 July in respect of Zimbabwe. I will certainly ensure that we look for another opportunity to discuss the obviously very important issues that my hon. Friend raises.

Pete Wishart: May we have an early statement about the future of the joint ministerial committees of the devolved Parliament and Assemblies of the United Kingdom? Unbelievably, these powerful bodies have not met since 2002, and we now find ourselves with new dynamic Governments in each and every Parliament and Assembly in the United Kingdom. Can those moribund committees be reconvened to allow for a free and frank discussion and dialogue between the national Parliaments and Assemblies in the interests of each and every nation of the United Kingdom?

Jack Straw: I will certainly ensure that what the hon. Gentleman says is given full consideration within the British Government. We are anxious to make the devolution settlement protocols work in practice. To my personal knowledge, the joint ministerial committee on Europe was working until May 2006, and I am almost certain that it has been working since. That included representatives from the Scottish Administration and the Welsh Administration, and often included representatives of other parties. It was my duty as chairman of that committee to ensure that we worked co-operatively with such representatives, who were democratically elected within their nations, and I believe that we succeeded.

Gwyn Prosser: Many of us in the trade union and labour movement have campaigned long and hard for the introduction of a robust corporate manslaughter Act. The sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, a cross-Channel ferry based in Dover, 20 years ago gave extra impetus to that campaign. Is my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House confident that the Bill that is being considered again this afternoon will go through all its stages before the end of this Session? Will he talk to his successor to ensure that she does all that she can to make sure that the Bill does not fall?

Jack Straw: As my hon. Friend knows, consideration of a Lords message on the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill is next on the Order Paper straight after this business. He will also know that provisions have been put into the Bill by the other place, particularly in respect of circumstances in which the offences would apply to deaths in custody. Those issues are being considered. Of course we are committed to the legislation; it is our Bill. We are the people who introduced a Bill in respect of corporate manslaughter, and corporate homicide in Scotland.

Patrick Mercer: The Leader of the House cannot have failed to notice that another three soldiers have been murdered and several others injured this morning in Iraq. I do not know whether it is the case, but a device such as that which has killed those young men and injured others probably has the hand of Iran behind it. May we have a full and clear debate on Iran's murderous interventions in Iraq and a clear statement of Government policy towards Iran for the future?

Jack Straw: May I first pay tribute on behalf of the Government and the House to the soldiers who lost their lives in southern Iraq in the small hours of this morning, and send our deep condolences to their families, friends and comrades in arms? Yesterday in this House my right hon. Friend Tony Blair paid his own tribute to the British forces. They are indeed the best and the bravest, as those such as the hon. Gentleman and many others in the House who have personal dealings, friendships and families in the forces have every reason to know. On the issue of policy that the hon. Gentleman raises, let me say that I know of that concern and I will consider, not least in the context of the concern raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), when we can have a debate.

Anne Moffat: Will my right hon. Friend consider looking at security provision for Members of Parliament in their constituencies? Within the last year, I have received death threats, my office has been broken into, and as recently as last week I had a death threat spray-painted over my home. The job is hard enough, without having to go through this kind of thing. Does my right hon. Friend think that there should be some mechanism whereby Members who are subjected to such awful behaviour get some support?

Jack Straw: Yes is the answer. First, my hon. Friend should receive extra support from the local police. I will certainly assist her in ensuring that if they are not already doing so, as I hope they are, the local police take the matter very seriously. Secondly, it is in the discretion of the House authorities to make grants to Members for special security measures, taking account of the specific risk. I know of a number of Members who have benefited from that grant arrangement.

Bob Russell: After 25 years of failed housing policy, it has been reported that the new Prime Minister is to introduce a programme to resume the building of council houses, especially for families. The council house waiting list has increased by more than 600,000 since Labour came to power, and hundreds of thousands of children live in accommodation deemed inadequate for their needs. Can the Leader of the House indicate when that council house building programme will commence?

Jack Straw: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not make an announcement on that, as well as much else. We have done a huge amount in respect of house building, home creation and home ownership. Home ownership is at record levels. House building is at its highest level since 1990. There has been substantial investment, not least in suburban Essex and Kent—not far from the hon. Gentleman's constituency—to increase the number of affordable homes. The problem that the Government and the country face is that the demand for homes and the formation of families is rising at an ever faster pace. We have to meet that challenge, which is one reason why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken so much in recent days about the need for an upgrading of our response to the demand for affordable homes, as indeed will happen.

John Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend assist me in obtaining a debate on the Floor of the House and perhaps talking to the relevant Minister about introducing a Bill to stop ticket touting? It was announced this morning that Wimbledon innovatively put 500 tickets on the internet, only to find that most of them had been bought up by ticket touts and were reappearing on the internet at grossly inflated prices. Is it not time that we protected the ordinary fan in this country?

Jack Straw: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concerns and those of many other hon. Members about ticket touting. He may also be aware that the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is currently holding an inquiry into ticket touting. The whole House will be looking forward to its conclusions.

Alistair Burt: A few weeks ago it was revealed that the European Union had suspended payment under its European regional development fund programme to most English regions because of failures in Government accounting policy. This week it was revealed to me in a written parliamentary answer that a further £269 million had been withheld from earlier programmes. Why has a Minister not come to the Dispatch Box to talk about this? Can the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate so that that can be remedied?

Jack Straw: I shall certainly take the matter up with the relevant Secretaries of State. The hon. Gentleman raises what, on the face of it, is an important matter. I will hope for a proper response.

Rob Marris: Hitherto, climate change debates in the House have centred on dealing with the causes—emissions—rather than the effects of climate change. For more than a year I have been ploughing a somewhat lonely furrow on the adaptation side of the equation, which is little debated. Adaptation is a cross-departmental issue. In the light of the terrible flooding in this country particularly in the past fortnight, which, sadly, looks as if it will continue for a few days, may we have an early debate on measures to adapt to the effects of climate change?

Jack Straw: I will certainly look for such an opportunity. My hon. Friend raises an important issue.

Andrew Pelling: Yesterday there was a written statement on the altered memorandum of understanding on the funding of the Olympics. When does the Leader of the House expect legislation to permit that, as suggested in the memorandum of understanding? It would give us an opportunity to discuss the poor deal for London in the new arrangements, with £300 million to be cut from London's services in the run-up to the Olympics, when there will be additional pressures on London's services to fulfil the needs of the Olympics.

Jack Straw: We will come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific issue about legislation, but I simply do not accept what he says. I am chairman of the Cabinet Committee on the Olympics so I have been paying great attention to that matter—still fulfilling my role as Leader of the House, I might point out to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May). The Olympics are hugely welcomed by Londoners, as well as by the rest of the country. The money has to come from somewhere, but I believe the benefits of the legacy of the Olympics for London, the south-east and the nation as a whole will in the end be seen far to outweigh the cost.

Douglas Hogg: May we have an early debate on the role of the House of Commons? That will enable the Prime Minister to describe his proposals to enhance this place, but it will also enable people such as me to say that unless Members of Parliament recover their independence, and in particular, loosen the grip of the Whips—on both sides of the House—the changes will be of little relevance.

Jack Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to make his own remarks, as I am sure there will be plenty of occasions for such debates. However, I think that the Conservative party is showing every sign that its Members are leaving the grip of the Whips Office, which is why we welcomed his constituency neighbour, his former hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford—and we look forward to the right hon. and learned Gentleman crossing the Floor, too.

Richard Younger-Ross: May I wish the Leader of the House every success? I thank him for the courtesy he has always shown when I put questions to him, and in particular, for always answering them. However, will he reflect on the answer he gave earlier when he said that there had been no cuts in flood defence schemes? I draw his attention to the schemes for Shaldon and Teignmouth in my constituency, which, I am advised, have been delayed by at least two years because of the changes in the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Either I am being misled or the Leader of the House has been misled.

Jack Straw: May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, in a similar spirit, on having asked a rather more comprehensible question than the one he put to the former Prime Minister yesterday? He may like to know that almost the whole of the 1874 Session was spent debating relations between Church and state, and he may want to go back to that; it would be a good new Liberal Democrat project.
	I accepted, and put on the record, that there had been a reduction in the overall flood risk budget by £15 million, but I then went on to say that I had been advised that the capital budget had not been cut, and that funding for capital projects for new and improved defences to reduce risk was not affected, so no current or planned capital improvement projects were delayed as a result. The amount of spending on flood risk management overall has doubled since 1997. Of course, there is always more that we can do and should do, and we take account of the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I think the answer I have given him is accurate. If it is not, of course we shall correct it.

Julian Lewis: Returning to the topic raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer)—the death of three servicemen and the wounding of a fourth—it had appeared that the Ministry of Defence and the broadcasters had got their act together by not broadcasting details until they could say in the broadcast that next of kin had already been informed. This morning, however, it was clear from the broadcasting of the news that next of kin had not already been informed, or if they had it was not said in the broadcast, which must have sent a thrill of horror through everybody who has family members serving in Basra. May we have a definitive statement from a Defence Minister to make it absolutely clear that such broadcasts should never be made until it can be said that next of kin have been informed? Whether or not the news creeps out on the internet or anywhere else is irrelevant, because the majority of families probably will not see that, but they will hear the broadcasts.

Jack Straw: I believe that British broadcasters show great responsibility, but I shall of course pass on the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is shared by all of us, that next of kin should always be the first to know whenever possible. However, I do not think it is practical or realistic to dismiss the fact that others may be broadcasting such news; the problem is that in Iraq, as everywhere else in the world, there are people with mobile phones, cameras and video cameras at all those sites, so the news more than seeps out; it is broadcast in a large way.

Tobias Ellwood: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) about the three tragic deaths, my regiment is serving in southern Iraq. It has only just been deployed there, yet in the first 48 hours 15 personnel were wounded, and it receives fatalities of about one a week. Those statistics are unacceptable, so I urge the Leader of the House to accept the fact that we require a statement from the new Prime Minister on long-term strategy for Iraq and, more importantly, a statement from the Defence Secretary about whether we have the right size of force and the right equipment to do the job, before we see that country spiral into civil war.

Jack Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's great concern—not least from his own experience. Many Members on both sides of the House have, have had or will have family serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they appreciate the extent of the anxiety caused to families. I shall ensure that both the hon. Gentleman's points, in respect of a wider statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and a more immediate statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, are communicated to them.

Andrew MacKay: I very much share the concerns expressed by many that the chairman of the Labour party should not also be Leader of the House, but another problem needs to be addressed: we hope that the new Secretary of State for International Development will make a statement next week to explain how he can be the election manager for the Labour party while also carrying out the onerous and difficult tasks of a Secretary of State.

Jack Straw: May I just repeat the point that all of us, whichever side of the House we sit on, have to accept what is called in the jargon multi-tasking? For example, all of us are constituency Members; when I was Foreign Secretary, I carried on with constituency surgeries—all Members do that—but we are partisan politicians as well. During my 18 years in opposition, I remember many Conservative Members who held high office and conducted it with great assiduity and integrity but who were also partisan politicians and filled senior positions on behalf of their party at the same time.

David Howarth: May we have an urgent debate on the views of the new Prime Minister on the environment? It was noticeable that yesterday in his speech in Downing street he mentioned neither climate change or the environment, and that he gave the issue short shrift in his speech accepting the leadership of the Labour party—and as the Treasury was hardly a powerhouse of environmentalism under his care, this is starting to look deliberate.

Jack Straw: I completely reject what the hon. Gentleman says. He has not been listening to what my right hon. Friend, now the Prime Minister, has been saying. Across the country, in 11 separate hustings—partisan hustings—my right hon. Friend spoke a great deal about climate change. Moreover, in the Treasury it was my right hon. Friend who gave much support, and indeed much leadership, to the Government's efforts until now, when we have a world position on climate change, and set up the Stern inquiry, which has reported and is providing much policy for the future Government.

John Penrose: I listened to the Leader of the House's comments about school discipline with great concern. Does he really believe that it is appropriate to compel head teachers to readmit pupils excluded for rude and abusive behaviour towards staff? If he does, would he consider having a word with the new Prime Minister about offering a new Cabinet position to—to choose an entirely random example—a former Home Secretary who called the Prime Minister a delusional control freak, and psychologically flawed?

Jack Straw: Discipline is a dangerous topic for the Conservative party to get into, although I am always happy to debate it. However, there is a serious issue about school discipline, which I did not deal with directly in my reply to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead; I am sorry about that. We faced the issue when I chaired the governors of my children's large and diverse comprehensive school, and I am certain that the new Education Secretary, whoever that may be, will consider it with great care.

David Jones: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the next Home Secretary to make a statement on the operation of section 165A of the Road Traffic 1988, the provision that empowers the police to seize uninsured motor vehicles? Two weeks ago, a car belonging to my constituent, Mrs. Maureen Smith of Rhos-on-Sea, was being driven quite legally by her daughter under the terms of her own insurance when it was seized by the police. Mrs. Smith was obliged to pay a £105 fee to have the car released from the car pound and her daughter received a £200 fixed penalty and six points on her licence.
	The difficulty is that the police relied on the motor insurance database, which is of necessity always out of date, because of the number of vehicles that change hands and the number of insurance policies that are changed. On that basis, does the Leader of the House agree that this is a serious issue, and that many other motorists may well be penalised in the manner that I have described? Will he ask the Home Secretary to consider that point?

Jack Straw: I am certainly happy to suggest that the matter be looked at. However, I say two things to the hon. Gentleman. First, things sometimes go wrong in specific cases, and he and his constituents have clear rights to make a complaint against the police. I am sure that they will do so. Secondly, however, the principle behind that section of the 1988 Act, which was introduced by the hon. Gentleman's party when it was in government, is a good one. Indeed, I think that most of us would want it to be used even more when the police are clear that uninsured vehicles are being driven around. Typically, those who show social irresponsibility in respect of not insuring their vehicles are also much more likely to show social irresponsibility in everything else.

Orders of the Day

Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill

Lords Reasons for insisting on their amendments to which the Commons have disagreed and for disagreeing to the Commons amendments to the Bill in lieu, considered.
	 Lords Reasons: Nos. 2B, 3B, 5B, 6B and 10E.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move,
	That this House insists on disagreement with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10, but does not insist on its amendments Nos. 10C and 10D in lieu thereof, and proposes amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d) in lieu of the Lords amendments.
	The other place has for a third time sent to us amendments to the Bill that would extend the new offence to deaths in custody in all circumstances. Hon. Members will be familiar with the Government's position. I do not intend to rehearse this at length, but I do want to place this issue in the wider context of progress on other issues in the Bill and to set out why we are not persuaded to set a timetable for custody.
	Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have always made it clear to hon. Friends and Opposition Members that the Government would listen carefully to arguments to improve the Bill, and we have done so. The Government responded to concerns about the test for liability in the Bill as it was first introduced, we have shown flexibility in terms of the sort of organisations to which the offence applies and extended the Bill to certain unincorporated associations. We have offered real progress on the sort of penalties that will be available against convicted organisations and made provision for an entirely new sort of disposal against corporate bodies—a publicity order.
	When concerns arose about the possible impact of the new offence on prosecutions against individuals on a secondary basis for health and safety offences, we again offered amendments to clarify the position. The Government openly recognised the strength of concern in this House and in the other place on the question of custody, and again offered positive movement. That is not just in terms of a power to extend the new offence—a move that explicitly opens the door to a future extension to custody— but in practical terms. Putting the prisons and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing will strengthen the position of that office to provide an independent investigation of deaths in prisons and other forms of custody.

Dominic Grieve: Will the Minister confirm, yet again, that the latest set of amendments that the Government have tabled actually enable any future Secretary of State to restrict the introduction of any measures to extend to custody in exactly whatever way the Government see fit? The suggestion that it is simply a device by which at some future date the Lords amendments can be brought into force is not accurate. In fact, it would allow for the complete rewriting of the Lords intention.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I do not accept that, and I will say why I think that we need to support the position that we are in. I have accepted the principle of what has been said, and putting the office of prisons and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing will strengthen that office.
	Hon. Members will see that, in the criminal justice Bill that was introduced yesterday, we are delivering on our commitment. We will be strengthening the arrangements for decreasing the occurrence of such deaths in the first place through the commitment to strengthening the forum for preventing deaths in custody. That is considerable movement on the Government's part, and it is against that background that this House should measure where we are now. This is not resistance for the sake of it; it is because we genuinely consider that this is as far as the Bill should go at this stage.

David Winnick: At the end of it all, I will probably vote with the Government, but I will do so with the greatest reluctance. I have read the exchanges in the other place and my view is that compelling arguments were advanced for the Government to go further. I am very disappointed that it has not been possible for my hon. Friend to tell the House that the Lords amendments should be accepted.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am sad that my hon. Friend is disappointed and saddened, but if he has followed the debate all the way through from the Government's original position, he will fully understand why we are in this position today. Many groups and stakeholders were involved in the progress of the Bill and they had different views about its progress, but they were flexible and understood the Government's position. We have moved genuinely forward on the issue of deaths in custody.

Edward Davey: Will the Minister give way?

Gerry Sutcliffe: I will but I want to make progress, because I suspect that we will be rehearsing arguments that have been made before.

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he keeps telling the House that the Government have moved and accepted the position in principle. However, he did that the last time we debated the issue, but with a qualification—"if" the powers were ever needed. It is important to see whether the Government have moved from the word "if" to the word "when".

Gerry Sutcliffe: If the hon. Gentleman listens, I think he will hear me provide the strong qualification that he is looking for.

Chris Mullin: I acknowledge that the Government have been listening and that they have moved. I also acknowledge my hon. Friend's sincerity. However, he has had many predecessors and there will probably be a lot of successors, and it cannot be guaranteed that his successors will share his view. The Bill as framed makes it possible for this commitment to be forgotten about, and that is why many of us are worried.

Gerry Sutcliffe: That is not the Government's intention. During the debate on deaths in custody, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee and other bodies in the House have made sure that the issue has developed in the way that it has. I am clear that they will continue to ensure that the issue is dealt with. It is my fervent belief that we need to give the prisons and probation ombudsman the opportunity to develop his role and we also want to strengthen the forum for preventing deaths in custody. Other issues may flow from those two arrangements and they may affect the issue even further.
	It is not the Government's intention to condone or protect circumstances in which there are serious failings in the management of custody. The issue is about the appropriate application of a new criminal offence. The Bill recognises that there are difficult decisions to be taken about the application of the new offence to the operation of public services. That position was debated at length in proceedings in this House and in the other place. This House has supported excluding the exercise of a number of public responsibilities from the scope of the offence. It is therefore an overstatement to say that equality before the law demands the application of the offence to those in custody. Accountability for the exercise of public functions raises difficult and complex issues. The forums for investigating and holding to account those responsible for public responsibilities, including the management of custody, recognise this.
	The Government have been prepared to meet concerns that the offence should apply to custody by opening the door clearly in the Bill to that being the case. That is a serious acknowledgement of the issues here and accepts clearly the principle of the offence applying. However, this issue must also be seen in the wider context of lifting Crown immunity. Applying the new offence to Government Departments brings with it considerable uncertainty. How these bodies discharge their public responsibilities is intimately bound up with wider questions of public policy.
	It is tempting to consider that faults in the management chain and operational matters can be isolated from the organisational context within which they occurred. In practice, that is a difficult distinction to make and, in the exercise of public responsibilities, the systems and processes by which an activity is managed can involve fundamental questions of policy, not least in relation to the allocation of resources. Those matters need to be answered for politically.
	On one view, that is a reason for not lifting Crown immunity or at least never extending the offence beyond the sorts of duties already set out in the Bill. We have taken considerable steps beyond that by accepting in principle the application of the offence to the management of custody. However, there must be an opportunity for Departments, investigators and the courts to become familiar with the concept of criminal liability for Crown bodies in areas such as employer and occupier responsibilities before looking to apply this sort of offence to the discharge of public functions any more widely than the Bill currently allows. That will also provide time for the changes to the ombudsman's powers to become established and for the forum for preventing deaths to be further developed, and time to consider how the wider application of the offence will operate alongside those changes.
	I cannot set out the timetable today and the right approach to acknowledging the uncertainty is to include a power in the Bill to extend the offence. There can be no doubt that Parliament envisaged the application of the offence to custody—the principle of that is accepted, but the exact timing is not. There will be a considerable opportunity to question the Government on the matter: for example, through the Select Committees. The Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have demonstrated their interest so far. Our proposals for putting the prisons and probation ombudsman on a statutory footing include provision for publishing and laying before Parliament various reports. That will provide a new source of information on the management of custody.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister knows the reality: implementation by statutory instrument is a matter wholly at the discretion of the Government of the day. No Member of Parliament can introduce the statutory instrument to try to force the Government's hand. If we lose this opportunity—there are many caveats from the Minister about when the measure might be introduced—is it not the case that we will be taking something on a promise that looks even more remote today than when we last considered the matter?

Gerry Sutcliffe: Again, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view, but I do not agree with it. Clearly, the House should consider the matter in the round and think about what we have tried to achieve. We are in a difficult position. Many organisations and bodies want to see the Bill enacted and it will be sad if the movement that the Government have made is not acknowledged and if the other place continues to reject what we are saying. That will not help people in terms of resolving the issues around deaths in custody and it will certainly not reflect the main inspiration for the Bill.

Edward Davey: Why should private sector organisations have no timetable for changing their processes to prepare for the offence, when public sector bodies—in this case, the Prison Service—have carte blanche and may never even have to face up to the measures? Are public sector managers in the Prison Service so much more inefficient and incompetent than private sector managers? Will the Minister explain the logic of that to the House?

Gerry Sutcliffe: That is entirely wrong. The hon. Gentleman has not looked at the core of the issue. This is about public functions. The Government are lifting Crown immunity—that has never been done before—where the Crown operates as an employer and an occupier. There are other ways to inspect the way that public policy is outlined. I have explained that in previous discussions. He is quite right to talk about the private sector. One of the reasons for applying the offence to the private sector was to read across to what we needed to do in the public sector. That was the motivation for removing Crown immunity.
	I understand the passion around the issue of deaths in custody and we all agree that we have to try to find ways to prevent those deaths. The Government have set out a way of doing that. Opposition Members underestimate the powers of Select Committees and other bodies to continue to pressurise the Government in the future. I want to make sure that we do not compromise a complex situation that involves the relationship between public policy and organisational matters.
	We have made two changes to the amendments in lieu since they were last considered. First, there is a change to address a point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in our previous debate. He was concerned at the inclusion of the scope—in subsection (2) of the proposed power to extend the offence—to specify exemptions to the forms of custody to which the offence would extend. I undertook to consider that point. As I said, I have always tried to address matters of concern where possible and we have removed the ability to specify exemptions.
	It will remain necessary for the order to set out the forms of custody to which the offence extends. It is right that that should be the case. There are a number of technical points that are not adequately addressed in the amendments proposed by the other place. In the context of an order-making power, it is right that the exact description of custody should appear in the order itself, but there will not be the scope to specify exemptions.

Dominic Grieve: I am grateful that the Minister has taken on board the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, but is not the reality of the wording that it would be open to the Government to introduce the measure in relation to certain sorts of custody, but not to others—if they were minded to do so? That is how I read the amendment. Clearly, the Lords intended the introduction to apply to all forms of custody. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that that may make some Members a little nervous about the direction in which the Government are going.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Hon. Members cannot have it all ways. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked us to reflect on the matter. We have done that and we think that we have hit on the right way forward. This is not an attempt to deal with the matter in an underhand way; it is a genuine attempt to meet the requirements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) will accept that.
	Secondly, changes have been made to make it clear that the definition of "premises" in subsection (1) of the power is the same as the definition in clause 2. That definition will now appear in the wider interpretation clause that is inserted by amendments made in the other place.
	This is an important Bill that will strengthen the law and make sure that organisations have strong health and safety policies. I hope that the other place and Members in this House recognise the lengths to which the Government have gone to try to address the points raised on both sides of the House. I hope that hon. Members will support us today.

Dominic Grieve: I am always pleased to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box, but I am rather sorry to hear what he has to say. There is plainly a wide measure of agreement in this House and the other place concerning this matter. We are all in agreement—the Minister has reiterated this today—that the issue of deaths in custody is serious. It could not be anything other than that. There were some 2,000 deaths in custody between 1995 and 2005. Unfortunately, not a year goes by—sometimes I think not a month goes by—without our hearing of another example that gives rise to concern.
	I have no doubt that the vast majority of the deaths are nobody's fault, but, from time to time, there is pretty clear evidence that a death may be the result of neglect of a kind that would not give rise to any personal criminal liability by an individual, but that would certainly fall within the scope of what the Bill is intended to consider. There may well be corporate failures within the Prison Service or other organisations that have allowed such a death to occur.

Edward Garnier: The problem that my hon. Friend outlines is going to get worse tomorrow, because the Government, under their chaotic arrangements for dealing with overcrowding in prisons, are going to release thousands of inmates back on to the streets, without supervision or assessment. Many of them will be drug addicts. While in prison, they have been cared for by the Prison Service and the health service, but once they are released—if they are released when they are still suffering from drug addiction—many of them could come to untimely ends as a consequence of the lack of care. Does he accept that the Prison Service's duty of care covers not only the period during which those people are in custody, but must foreseeably extend to a situation in which it releases unsuitable people who are affected by drugs on to the streets from within its care?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. and learned Friend makes an interesting point, although it pushes the bounds of what can be foreseen a little. I am not sure that I wish to encourage his line of reasoning because it might make it even less likely that the Government will extend the corporate manslaughter offence to the Prison Service.
	In the context of prisons, I have always thought that the main scope of the offence was the care delivered in the prison system. However, my hon. and learned Friend makes a perfectly fair point. Someone who was known to be a serious suicide risk might suddenly be thrown out of the prison hospital wing one morning. If no provision had been made for their care after release and the first thing that they did was to throw themselves under a railway train at the nearest station, that could give rise to interesting legal and factual arguments about the possible extension of the duty of care. I accept what my hon. and learned Friend says. From his experience of visiting prisons in his capacity as our prisons and criminal justice spokesman, he knows only too well the worrying fact that an overcrowded Prison Service is poor at delivering care to the most vulnerable.
	That live issue is one of the reasons why we believe that the corporate manslaughter offence should be extended to protect people in custody. The Government appear to have accepted that principle, albeit not without considerable argument, and that was the major concession made by the Minister in one of our ping-pong sessions. However, rather than following the logic of his argument of saying that the Prison Service will need time to prepare for the change, the Minister hides behind the statement that the system will be introduced by statutory instrument as and when the Government think that everything is ready.
	The Government pride themselves on target setting. The old Government—I suspect that the same will be true of the new Government because the new Prime Minister seems to be as wedded to this as anyone—said that they liked targets because they enforced discipline. Ministers have proudly said at the Dispatch Box that the Government will be able to match targets for the implementation of measures. Why, therefore, will not the Minister pick a reasonable target for changing the culture in the Prison Service and elsewhere so that a full assessment can be made of the response to the measure, which, as the Minister concedes, is entirely justified?
	I realise that we are in times of change. The new Prime Minister has a reputation in the press—perhaps it is grossly unfair—of being a little curmudgeonly. Here is his opportunity, with his new vision for Britain, to take a grip of government and take a different stand. I mean that seriously. Conservative Members are looking to him to show leadership on a matter on which there is much cross-party consensus. When the Minister has the opportunity to see the new Prime Minister, I hope that he will point out to him the extent of the disquiet in the House and what we are seeking.
	I am not sure whether we have a new Home Secretary yet, or whether he is moving from ministerial substance into ministerial ectoplasm. However, it appeared that he was a serious impediment to the implementation of the proposals. As he is vanishing into thin air as I speak, this must be a tremendous opportunity—I had rather hoped that the Minister would have been in a position to grasp it with both hands today—for the Government to shift by saying that they accept that such a timetable would be possible. If that happened, we could all congratulate ourselves mutually and go away, which is what I want to happen.
	This might be a little premature. I am conscious that doors are swinging as people go in and out of No. 10 Downing street. There has not been time to present new Ministers with their briefs. The Minister is probably not quite sure what his post will be in 24 hours. All that makes life very difficult, but it is all the more reason why we should ensure that this issue is kept live so that we can come back to it next week and the week after. I am confident that the other place, on a cross-party basis, is resolute on this matter and will not let it drop, given that the Government's explanations for their position on the implementation of the amendments have been really incoherent.
	My children are now growing up, but when they were little, they used to engage in distraction when one wished to scold them for doing something wrong. They would introduce a new argument, or something would happen, to distract one from the main issue. The Minister has been doing such a thing rather well. We have been told about systems and given promises of reform in the future, even though there are absolutely no assurances that we will get it. I even detected that it was vaguely suggested in the other place that the Lords amendments might not work quite as intended. If that is the case, the ball is firmly in the Minister's court because the Government would have not the slightest difficulty curing that problem, if they wished to do so.
	I am sorry that we are again not succeeding in making progress. The Bill will continue to go backwards and forwards. It has been pointed out that unless the time period is extended, the Bill has until 19 July. If the Government wish to continue the argument, they can extend the time allowed until the end of the parliamentary Session. If they do so, I will be only too happy to come back to the Dispatch Box to debate the matter further with the Minister because as long as it is alive, there is some hope that we will reach the outcome that everyone in the Chamber—including, I strongly suspect, the Minister—would like to see.
	I hope that reasonableness will prevail. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that we cannot support the Government's motion. However, whatever happens in the Division, I hope, if the Minister is not promoted, that he will give us his benevolent presence again in the Chamber and that we can reach the happy moment when we agree that we have a sensible timetable and target so that protection for some of the most vulnerable members of our society will finally be provided in a completely reasonable fashion.

David Winnick: The Bill is an excellent measure and the sort of legislation that one would expect from a Labour Government. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on the progress and concessions that have been made as a result of debates here and in the other place. However, through no fault of his own—presumably, he does not make the decisions on these matters—the principle of addressing death in custody has not been put into effect. If the death of prisoners was relatively unknown and a minor matter, one could understand the Government's position. However, some pretty tragic cases have been cited by Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons who tabled the Lords amendments. I find it difficult to understand for the life of me why the Government will not go a step further. As we have heard, there is no doubt that the principle has been accepted. Why should the Bill become an Act without covering those who die in custody? Even at this very late stage, I hope that the matter will be given further consideration.
	I have no doubt that the Government will not have a problem getting a majority at the conclusion of this debate. There will be no rebellion. I will probably vote with the Government, albeit with much hesitation. Government Members often ration the number of times that they vote against the Government or abstain. I certainly do so, although I am not sure whether it is appreciated by the Whips. I am very conscious of my responsibilities as a Member. As I said in an intervention, I read with considerable care the arguments put forward on Monday in the House of Lords, and they seem to be compelling arguments to which it would be difficult to object. I have not the slightest doubt that if we were on the Opposition Benches, we would make precisely the sort of speech that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made, but of course it is quite likely that if we had a Conservative Government, the Bill that we are debating would not have been introduced.
	As I have said, I am saddened and disappointed. I believe that the Government should go further, and that the Lords were right. I would not be surprised if they insisted on their amendments and the Bill came back before us once again.

Edward Davey: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) joins the long line of distinguished Labour Back Benchers who are contributing to the cross-party support for our argument with the Government. In a way, he has done so in order to try to push the Minister to where the hon. Gentleman and I believe the Minister wants to go. Debate on the Bill and on the issue that we are discussing has been of high quality. The arguments have been put forward clearly, but today the Minister has yet again not come forward with a strong argument for his position. We have heard a number of arguments about the process, and they have all been destroyed, both in this place and the other place. They really do not stand analysis.
	One particular argument, which is out of tenor with the other arguments that have been made, has been heard outside this place, and Members of the Commons and the other place have been lobbied on it. It is the idea that those of us who support including provisions on deaths in custody in the legislation are somehow trying to kill the Bill. That is absurd and completely wrong, and anyone who has seen the way in which Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members have supported the Government's overall thrust throughout the Bill's progress knows it to be wrong. Only one group of people can kill the Bill, and that is the Government. They need to listen to Parliament, and to arguments by Members of all parties, in this place and the other place. If they refuse to do that, they will kill the Bill.
	I find it quite shameful that there has been pressure from outside bodies that rightly want the Bill, and which know that all parties in the House want the Bill, but are trying to suggest that we are behaving poorly by pushing the Government on the issue. We are behaving in exactly the right way. We are behaving as a democratic, open Parliament should behave, and we are flexing our muscles in the only way we can. I believe that this House, and Parliament in general, is not strong enough. It is only on rare occasions such as this that we can show the Government that they really need to move and listen. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made clear, if we do not include the measure in the Bill now, the chances of having another occasion on which to do it are remote, so we need to win this battle, and the Minister needs to listen.
	In many ways, the issue of whether or not the Minister will still be in his position in a few days' time should not concern the House. If he is promoted, or moves sideways or whatever, I am sure that he will talk to his successor. I hope that he will also talk to the new Secretary of State for Justice, the new Home Secretary and indeed the Prime Minister, to convince them that this is a golden opportunity to show that there is change. Yesterday, we heard the Prime Minister talking about change—change of heart and a change of approach—and about wanting to listen. Well, here is his first opportunity.

Michael Fabricant: The acid test.

Edward Davey: Yes, it is the acid test, and I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will give the Prime Minister that first bauble; we will congratulate the Minister if he does.
	I want to make two more points on the substance behind the issue. To refer back to my first intervention on the Minister, he and his colleagues in the other place keep telling us that the Government accept the principle behind the measure. We want to believe that and take it at face value, but there are so many caveats—so many ifs and buts—that it is difficult to believe that the principle really has been accepted, and that the Government are not simply using parliamentary and legislative devices to avoid the pressure that is being put on them. If the Minister was prepared to say that it is no longer an issue of "if" or "whether", but rather of "when", that would be a shift. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) suggested the last time we debated the amendments, the Minister could come before the House with a commencement order that named a date two or three years hence. If he did that, I am sure that reasonable people on both sides of the Chamber would give it serious consideration, even though many of us want the measure to be introduced very quickly.
	Although the Minister has been courteous, generous and attentive to the remarks of hon. Members of all parties throughout the passage of the legislation, on this last point he really has not gone far enough. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield is quite right: the other place will stand absolutely firm on the issue. One only has to read the  Hansard report of the debate in the other place to realise that the other place feels very strongly about it, and it is being backed, and encouraged to stand firm, by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Benchers in this place. The number of Cross Benchers and Labour Members of the other place who support the Conservative and Liberal Democrat position is very large. The Minister mentioned to me in passing, yesterday evening or the day before, that he thought that a number of Lords had peeled off, but I have to tell him that the numbers against him are still very large. There might have been an extra-nice dinner on the evening of the vote, but the resolve of the Lords is clear.

David Heath: It is worth mentioning on the record the persuasive powers of Lord Ramsbotham, who is key on the issue, and who speaks with far more experience of conditions in the Prison Service than almost any of us, or any Member of the other place.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and anyone who reads the speeches of the noble Lord Ramsbotham will learn of the cases that he has come across in which the offence that we propose might well have applied, or in which a death in custody might not have happened if the provision had been on the statute books, as it would have created an incentive for the management to put its house in order. This House must continue with its opposition, and must send a clear signal to the other place.

Andrew Dismore: I certainly agree with the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). As far as I am aware, no one wants to put an end to the Bill. I started campaigning for the Bill some 20 years ago, in my former professional capacity, and after 20 years' hard work I certainly do not want to see the Bill go down the tubes. I have some reservations about whether its health and safety aspects are strong enough, and I have expressed them previously. Those who criticise the Bill and raise questions about it would do better to focus on those health and safety points, rather than on some of the issues that have been raised today. However, I feel strongly about the issue of deaths in custody, particularly after the work that the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I chair, did on the issue.
	The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) was right to remind us of what the issue is really about: it is about vulnerable people who die when in the state's custody, when the state has responsibility for their safety. He is also right to say that the overwhelming majority of those deaths, while tragic and unfortunate, are ultimately not the fault of anybody in authority. However, a very small number—perhaps a dozen or so over the past 10 years—do merit further detailed inquiry, perhaps under the provisions of the Bill. The Bill is meant to be a deterrent. It is not meant to be used to prosecute; it is meant to try to make people who come within the ambit of the Bill, from whatever walk of life, take their responsibilities seriously, whether we are talking about the transport network, accidents at work in factories, or death in custody.
	I am pleased that the Government have made significant concessions since we first raised the issue on Report. On that occasion, we were met with what was virtually a "no surrender" statement from the Home Secretary. I am pleased that the Government have listened and made concessions on the need for statutory powers for the prisons and probation ombudsman. We do not yet have a date, but I hope that measures will appear in the forthcoming Queen's Speech, following the review by the forum for preventing deaths in custody—we were told that that would take six months or so—and the amendments conceding the principle in the Bill. That is an important concession, and my hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the way in which he has approached the issue and engaged with Members on both sides of the House who have raised it, and with the other place, to make progress. It is even more important than it was when we first started to debate the issue. Only a couple of weeks ago, the Government introduced a new order to amend the rules on restraint in secure training centres which, on the face of it, broadened the powers to use restraint. The inquest on the death of Gareth Myatt has only just taken place, highlighting the need for additional protection in the Bill. I am not suggesting for one minute that those powers will be misused, but if they are to be broadened, the safeguards that accompany them must be broadened, too. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) prayed against the order, as I did myself, so that the issue can be discussed and fleshed out.
	My hon. Friend the Minister knows full well from today's debate and all the ping-pong that it comes down a question of whether he will name the day. That is all that we are interested in. I have suggested a number of different ways in which that could be done, and ways around the problem. Last time we discussed the matter, I suggested replacing the words in the first line of the new clause,
	"The Secretary of State may by order",
	with the words, "The Secretary of State shall by order". As we know from case law, the Secretary of State is obliged to keep that duty under active review to make sure that it is not overlooked. It should be a mandatory rather than a permissive power, and it would be a major step forward in efforts to resolve the problem.
	My hon. Friend is over-cautious in his proposed timetable. As has been said, we are asking for a target date. As I mentioned in our previous debate, a target is not mandatory—it suggests that we want to do something by a certain date. I am not even proposing that the target should appear in the Bill. If my hon. Friend commits to a date two or three years hence, and if it proves impossible to meet that date because of the improvements that we want to achieve, he or his successor would have to return to the House and explain why that was so. That is one way forward. As has been said today and previously, without a target date, there is no incentive to make the improvements necessary to make sure that prisons are safer and that the recommendations from the forum for preventing deaths in custody and from the ombudsman are put in place. We hope that the change will be made, and if my hon. Friend went down that route, it would be a major concession that could well be the way forward. He need not necessarily include a binding date in the Bill, but we would like a commitment to try to do those things by a certain date. That would go a long way towards resolving the issues that we face.
	Last time we debated the Bill, and on previous occasions, I told my hon. Friend that without a date the measure will not be accepted by the other place. Indeed, the other place has made that clear on the two or even three occasions on which the Bill has gone backwards and forwards between the two Houses. Given the number of Members voting against the Government in the other place, the Bill will come back again. However, time is running out: as has been said, the Bill must complete its passage through the Commons by the middle of next month; otherwise the Government will have to return with a further continuation order. That would look silly, because we would have exactly the same debate, and the Bill will keep coming back. In the end, if the Government seriously wish to make progress on the Bill—I accept that there have been reservations in the Government about whether the Bill is important, but I put the matter to the former Prime Minister in the Liaison Committee, because it is a fundamental commitment by the Government in several manifestos and in the Warwick agreement, so it cannot be dropped—why can the Minister not make a little movement today and name the day? We will not take breach of promise action if, in the end, the date cannot be met, but it would be a good step forward. If we could not meet the date, we could examine the reasons for failing to do so on a future occasion.

Edward Garnier: I agree with pretty well everything that the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) said as a matter both of practicality and of principle. I could say the same, too, of the speeches made by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey). As other hon. Members have suggested, I think that the Minister himself would rather like to have made the speeches that we have heard.
	Under clause 1, the offence of corporate manslaughter would catch mismanagement at a senior level that led to the death of an individual to whom a duty of care was owed. That would bind a Department listed in schedule 1—the Home Office is listed as one such Department—and police forces. As a matter of principle, I cannot see—and I do not think that the Minister can, either—why a death in custody that fits within the narrow compass of the offence should be excluded from the offence of corporate manslaughter. I have yet to hear a coherent or reasonable argument from the Minister for that exclusion. He said that the Government will simply repeat what they have said before, but there is a difference between repetition of a reasonable argument and stubborn refusal to see reason. Reason has been laid before the Government, both in the Commons and in the other place, on numerous occasions, by people who do not have a party political axe to grind. Lord Ramsbotham is an apolitical peer, and does not have any party political affiliations. He is interested in the proper, humane and efficient management of our prisons, and I invite the Government to take his advice in the spirit in which it was given.
	I suspect that, although the Government suggest that they have accepted the principle, by using the affirmation system—the delaying system on the Order Paper—they have converted their lack of principle into some form of acceptable principle for the purposes of debate. That will not do, I am afraid. The hon. Member for Hendon said that all we need is some form of target date. We will not nail the Government to the floor and say that if they miss the date we think they are malevolent. However, if they have genuinely accepted the principle, they should accept a date on which it should be implemented. An extended non-dated principle is no principle at all; it is a disguised way of the Government pretending that they accept the principle without wishing to accept the consequences of that acceptance.
	My concern that the issue of deaths in custody should be brought within the ambit of the Bill derives from the Government's historic failure to manage prisons over the past few years. The Minister knows very well that our prisons are woefully overcrowded, and that Operation Safeguard has been extended by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), to the end of the year, so police and court cells will have to be used until then to deal with overcrowding. Over the next 12 months or so, the early release system, which comes into effect tomorrow, will result in the early release of 25,500 or so offenders to reduce the prison population by a net figure of 1,200. Let us not worry about whether that is a good idea or not: let us put it in the context of the Government's concerns about the Bill. Surely they recognise that overcrowded prisons create all sorts of difficulties for prison management, which brings me back to clause 1. Lots of people in prison are drug addicts, and lots of them are mentally ill. If people in prison are both mentally ill and substance abusers, the chances of a death in custody are enhanced. It may well be the case that the Government are terrified that if prisons were included in the measure, there would be calls for prosecution on the grounds of corporate manslaughter. The Government, first, should be braver and, secondly, should be careful. This is the point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, who skilfully parked my question on one side.
	Tomorrow the Government will start throwing on to the streets drug addicts and mentally ill people who will be short of care. They cannot get the requisite care inside prison, but they get some. Class A drug users—heroin and crack cocaine users—are having their health maintained, even if they are not being brought off drugs by the use of methadone and Subutex within the health care system in prisons. If such people are pushed out the back door of prison in order to relieve the overcrowding of our prisons to some extent, the care that they should have got inside prison is unlikely to be given to them outside prison, and some of them may die outside on the street, even if they are not dying inside.
	It is a difficult, a nice, a huge area of concern, and the Government must not try to escape their responsibilities. They must also not try to escape their responsibility to the House and to the proper development of legislation, which we all want to see, as a result of denying the Bill the prospect of having deaths in custody brought within the confines of the narrow offence of corporate responsibility. I urge the Government to be brave and to get on with it, for goodness' sake, and to bring deaths in custody within the confines of corporate manslaughter responsibility.
	The Government should use that as a spur better to manage the prisons, the overcrowding and the care of inmates who suffer from mental ill health and from substance abuse, so that the prospects of being prosecuted are hugely diminished and the improvements in our prison system are enhanced as a consequence of the spur that the offence would bring.
	I know that the Minister will say, "No, thanks. We've heard it all before," but it is time for him to demonstrate a change. If the Government really do mean change—I am not in the least bit convinced that the present Prime Minister is any different from the Chancellor of the Exchequer who presided over us for the past 10 years—and if the Prime Minister meant what he said on the steps of Downing street yesterday, he will produce a real change that goes beyond simply rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate and pay tribute to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. I am aware of the strength of feeling on the matter, but that narrow issue is affecting the Government's movement right across the Bill.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for their speeches, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon who, through his Select Committee, has pursued the matter and graciously accepted that the Government have made progress and have made concessions. He will know that the Bill published yesterday contained the proposals for changes to the prisons and probation ombudsman, as I had said, and that on the forum on deaths in custody, there is a time scale which I set the last time we discussed the matter.
	Hon. Members seem to imply that the Government do not want to change, but it is this Government who are lifting Crown immunity. That raises complex issues about the Crown acting as an employer or occupier which need to be addressed. I want to make sure that we get the legislation in the best shape possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon was right to say that the Bill is intended as a deterrent. We all agree that we do not want the penalties in it to be enforced—we want appropriate health and safety measures to be put in place. My hon. Friend mentioned secure training centres and the review of restraint methods. That is entirely appropriate.
	I would not want anyone to think that the Government do not care about deaths in custody. We certainly do, and for all the reasons that have been set out, we must continue to investigate what happens and why. That is the function of the forum on deaths in custody. There are also the changes to the prisons and probation ombudsman, and we accept the principle of extending the Bill. We envisage that the Bill would be enacted as we set out, but the judgment on when its extension to custody should take place will be made at a future time, when all the outstanding issues have been considered.
	Lifting Crown immunity is a significant step forward. I accept what the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said. I do not accuse anyone in the House of trying to kill the Bill. However, people outside are worried because we do not seem to be making progress. The Government are making concessions, but we are not seeing any movement by others. There is no acknowledgement of the fact that Crown immunity has been lifted.
	We face a problem with the timetable. It is true that an extension is possible, but only if there is a prospect of moving forward. At present there is no such prospect. Our position is clear. I do not want all the hard work and effort that have gone into the Bill, which has been around for a long time—

David Winnick: I do not want to undermine the possibility of the Bill becoming law, so I shall not vote against it, as I fully support nine tenths of its content. I hope that if the Lords insist on their amendment—as I said, I will not be disappointed if they do—my hon. Friend will have frank discussions with the new Home Secretary to see whether a compromise can be reached that will satisfy both Houses.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall continue to try and resolve these issues, but I would be misleading the House if I said that there was a prospect of the Government changing their position dramatically. I hope the House will reiterate its view today. The second Chamber is supposed to be a reforming Chamber, as I hope will be acknowledged. It is important that we get movement, or the Bill will be lost, which I do not want.
	I hope hon. Members will reflect on what has been said. I hope they will think again about the complexity of the issues involved. If, as I hope, we achieve majority support for the Government's position, Members in another place will reflect on that.

Question put, That this House insists on disagreements with the Lords in their amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10, but does not insist on its amendments 10C and 10D in lieu thereof, and proposes amendments (a), (b), (c) and (d) in lieu of the Lords amendments.
	 The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 157.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Government amendments in lieu of the Lords amendments agreed to.

Concessionary Bus Travel Bill  [Lords]

As amended in the  Public Bill  Committee, considered.

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Review of reimbursement arrangements

'Two years after the commencement of this Act the Secretary of State shall conduct a review of arrangements for allocating funding to local authorities necessary for the reimbursement of operators under section 3(2) of this Act; and shall lay before Parliament a report setting out his findings.'.— [Stephen Hammond.]
	 Brought up, and read the First time.

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 14, clause 9, page 7, line 8, after 'may', insert
	', and for the purposes of the national statutory concession shall,'.
	No. 15, page 7, line 24, after 'may', insert
	', and for the purposes of the national statutory concession shall.'.

Stephen Hammond: There was no dissent in the House on Second Reading or in Committee as to the intent of the Bill. The Opposition support the extension of concessionary travel for eligible people on eligible journeys in the transition from a local to a national scheme. We support the freedom pass in London and will do everything to ensure that it continues. However, the Government cannot will the end unless they will the means. I recognise that we debated this issue in Committee, but it is key to the Bill. Without the finance, the "end" of concessionary travel cannot be achieved, or can be achieved only at the expense of cuts in services or increased council tax. So far, the Government's response has been to say that enough funding will be available. Although I have absolutely no doubt as to the Minister's integrity or the sincerity of her belief that that is correct, that cannot be sufficient for the purposes of the Bill.

Philip Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just about the overall amount of money that is in place but about whether it is allocated to the right places? Many local authorities and local transport executives are concerned not necessarily about the overall level of funding but about whether it will follow the passenger.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a good and pertinent point. I will talk about that in more depth in a moment.
	In Committee, I sought support for several measures that would have forced the Government to be more transparent in their financial obligations, to reconsider the funding package to local government, and to clarify how they would interact financially with operators. This afternoon, I seek support for new clause 3.
	Let me set out some of the background to the new clause. As all Members will appreciate, council tax has doubled in the past 10 years and now constitutes a heavy burden for those on low and, in many cases, middle incomes.

David Davies: My hon. Friend raises an important and pertinent issue. Is he aware that in Monmouthshire, where we have a concessionary bus scheme and have done for several years as a result of measures taken by the Welsh Assembly, over the past 10 years council tax has gone up by the highest amount of any local authority in the United Kingdom—by 184 per cent.—and that one of the many reasons for that is the lack of proper funding by the Welsh Assembly Government for the concessionary bus transport scheme? Does he agree that it is vital that we ensure that constituents in England do not also suffer 184 per cent. council tax increases as a result of flawed funding formulae?

Stephen Hammond: Indeed I do. Again, I shall come to that point shortly. The new clause would ensure that the situation that my hon. Friend describes does not happen again.
	As I was saying, council tax now constitutes a heavy burden for those on low, and even middle incomes. Naturally, a large number of those affected by the sharp increases are elderly or disabled, whose lives the Bill, commendably, aims to improve by offering them free access to local travel nationally. Those two groups are most likely to be affected, and indeed financially disadvantaged, by the Bill's potential side effects. There are several ways in which its financial effects will be felt by the people whom it was intended to help.
	Let me give a brief snapshot of my experience in local government. Prior to becoming a Member of this House, I had the privilege of serving as a councillor at the London borough of Merton. I stood down when the Conservatives took control of the borough last May. While serving on that council, I became all too familiar with the impact that mayoral demands on money for concessionary travel were having on the local authority's finances. In 2004-05, the Mayor imposed on the borough a 9 per cent. increase for the freedom pass. As the Minister knows, local authorities in London have no option but to find that extra sum of money, and in that year the local authority had no option but to find it from the social services budget. That resulted in cuts to day care, disadvantaging exactly the groups who benefit from the freedom pass—the elderly and the disabled.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties for London local authorities is being able to compare the cost of their contribution to the pan-London scheme with the value that they get for the use of the passes? Some boroughs might get better value than their contribution; others might get less. Does he agree that if freedom passes could be made smarter, so that their usage could be tracked, that would provide a way of knowing whether any individual London authority was getting value for money out of the scheme?

Stephen Hammond: Indeed I do. The implementation of smartcards across the country would have that impact, as well as making more transparent usage and where the financial obligations should lie. I hope that later this afternoon we will be able to explore the London situation in rather more detail.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that however noble a cause may be, this Government have on many occasions announced proposals, funded them insufficiently for a short period, and then not funded them at all, leaving local authorities such as mine, the London borough of Redbridge, to pick up the bill and ultimately, as my hon. Friend says, to have to make cuts to other services to pay for them?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point—I intend to make exactly the same one later.
	From my experience as a local councillor, I remember the standards fund for, for example, education. We were expected as a local authority to introduce new measures and we were funded for three years. The funding was taken away but we were expected to continue with those measures. The implications for the local authority's finances were clear.
	Let me consider the 2006 scheme, which was the forerunner of the 2008 scheme that the Bill introduces. The 2006 concessionary travel scheme made concessionary travel available to eligible persons on eligible services in local travel concessionary areas. The Government stated that they had made enough money available to local authorities to fund that scheme fully. Early last year, I contacted 15 local authorities to ascertain whether, according to their estimates and calculations, the Government had introduced that funding. When we phoned, for example, Brighton and Hove council, it said that the central Government grant that it is due to receive is considerably less than the consultants' forecast of the new concession's cost.

Celia Barlow: The hon. Gentleman refers to my local authority of Brighton and Hove. May I mention an additional concern of the local authority to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary? It is worried about whether it will have enough time to implement the scheme and whether it will be given enough guidance when the Bill is introduced.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. When we phoned the local authority back to check whether its initial suspicions had proved correct, we found that its concerns had been realised. On 15 March this year, it told us that it will experience a severe shortfall in the budget. It also made the same point as the hon. Lady: it needs more time for implementation.
	We spoke to Cheshire, which made the same point. It was worried that the obligation to provide free fares will mean trimming services that it already provides. Indeed, when we phoned back this year, it made exactly the same point. The grant is not sufficient to cover its liabilities.
	I could go on—I spoke to 15 authorities, but I am sure that I do not need to detain the House by going through them all.

Philip Davies: Oh go on.

Stephen Hammond: It is a temptation that I can resist.
	For the 2006 scheme, only one local authority out of the 15 believed that it had been given sufficient resources. I accept that that is only a straw poll, which is random in its selection and, I suspect, not necessarily statistically sound.
	Let us consider in depth the case of Christchurch. The chief executive of the local authority wrote to me last year. He said that Christchurch has the highest percentage—36 per cent.—of population over the age of 60 of any local authority in England and Wales. In 2005-06, Christchurch's half-fare scheme cost the council approximately £138,000. For the scheme that was to be introduced in April 2006, the Government increased the grant by £237,000. Christchurch added £20,000 of its own money to that. The total concessionary grant was therefore £395,000. However, the take-up was significantly greater than expected and the budget was overspent by 87 per cent.—some £345,000, which is equivalent to an increase of 11 per cent. in the borough's element of the council tax. Christchurch had to make budget cuts elsewhere, including in its recycling programmes.
	However, not only Christchurch or the leafy south have such problems. Let us examine the problems of implementation in the north-east. Recently,  The Journal in Newcastle ran the headline: "More bus services could be cut as transport chiefs prepare for changes to a free travel scheme." It reported:
	"In April next year concessionary fares will change to allow pensioners and disabled people free off-peak bus travel anywhere in England. The cost of providing this will have to be met by the council in which the bus is boarded.
	But transport group Nexus says that the £212 million put aside by central government to finance the changes will not be enough, especially for councils with tourists and shopping hotspots."
	The problem applies throughout the country.

Alan Beith: While the hon. Gentleman is in the north-east, may I refer him to the problem of border areas? The Government are not willing to negotiate a reciprocal arrangement with Scotland at the same time as the introduction of the Bill, and local authorities such as Berwick will therefore have to find the money to maintain current enhancements and also bear the additional cost of the greater take-up, which is expected when the national bus pass is introduced and people elsewhere will be able to travel further on it.

Stephen Hammond: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, which was explored in Committee. Indeed, that consequence was presented forcefully and we wait to hear whether the Government have changed their position on the matter.
	 The Journal in Newcastle also reported:
	"The extra burden on council finance looks set to cause a repeat of last year's transport crisis which saw a £7.3 million budget black hole emerge as authorities struggled to find funding for concessionary bus travel."
	Shirley Atkinson, director of finance at Nexus, said:
	"Traditional funding does not match where the travel will fall. Some authorities may think they will get more money than they do now, but undoubtedly there will be some who will lose out. It can be quite a scary position to be in. We face having an uncontrollable financial risk for the first couple of years up until we know what this policy will look like in practice."

Jim Cousins: The hon. Gentleman has set out the position in the former metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear. I hope, if I have the opportunity, to refer to that later. He has set out a problem. Will he suggest a solution?

Stephen Hammond: Indeed. If the hon. Gentleman votes for the new clause, he will have a solution. It is that the Government should conduct a review of the funding after two years—

Jim Cousins: So we wait two years and then—

Stephen Hammond: If the hon. Gentleman would let me finish, I can explain. After that period, we can ascertain where the funding shortfalls are and where money needs to be reallocated. The absolute solution to the problem is to vote for new clause 3.

Jim Cousins: I apologise for my sedentary interjection. I shall now make the same point in a more proper fashion. The new clause says, "We might have a big problem. Let's not do anything about it for two years and then let's have a review." If the analysis of the problem that the hon. Gentleman has set out from Nexus in Tyne and Wear is correct, the new clause is hardly a sufficient method of dealing with it.

Stephen Hammond: I am bound to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. When he hears the rest of my remarks, he will realise why we have chosen the two-year period. Several problems may occur in the transitional year. Indeed, the finance director of Nexus refers to a couple of years, during which there may be transitional problems. It is therefore right to conduct a review after two years. I repeat that the solution to the problem is to vote with us for the new clause.
	To finish in Tyne and Wear, the free off-peak local bus passes were introduced in April 2006, with the council paying for the travel within its boundaries. To pay for that, Nexus had to change 11 bus services, raise the cost of child fares and scrap plans for a teen travel card. Travel chiefs are warning that, unless funding is certain and correct for the 2008 scheme, similar cuts might have to be implemented.
	Only yesterday morning I received an e-mail from the new incoming Conservative administration of Carrick council in Cornwall. The concern there is exactly the same. The Carrick scheme this year is more generous than is necessary to satisfy the Government scheme. The e-mail states:
	"Changing the scheme back to the minimum required standard will take some time and incur costs",
	if the council chooses to take that route.
	"The net benefit in the current financial year is probably not worth the effort. The real problems begin next year with a change in the imposed national scheme."
	The national bus concessionary travel scheme will impose considerable financial problems on Carrick, particularly as it is an area with a high number of tourists. That could have a major impact on the council tax.
	Around the country, a number of councils are expressing concern about the adequacy of central Government funding to support the scheme that is being introduced.

Fraser Kemp: Let us suppose that the hon. Gentleman's new clause is accepted, and that in two years' time we discover a substantial shortfall that cannot be addressed through redistribution, perhaps by taking money from Derbyshire, Staffordshire or even Tyne and Wear. Will he give an unequivocal commitment that any future Tory Government would match that shortfall? Will he give the House a clear financial commitment that they would find the money to address any shortfall that his amendment would create?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman wishes to lead me down an interesting road, but I shall not pursue him. Even the Minister would not create such a hostage to fortune. Will she stand up now and unequivocally make exactly that commitment now? I am sure that she will not, but if she will, I invite her to do so now. It is not a road that any sensible person would go down, two years ahead.

Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one possible way of reducing the cost of these schemes would be for local authorities to identify within the body of people who have accessed a free pass those who were making good use of them, and others who might be claiming them because they were entitled to do so, but not using them at all? There should be an opportunity to cut out that waste. People could be made aware that, if they claimed a free pass but did not use it, they would be making an unnecessary charge on the council tax.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Following the discussions in Committee, I hope that when the Government introduce the scheme in April next year they will be able to introduce it with a smartcard. If they can do that, we will be able to see clear ridership patterns and identify who is using the scheme. If a person is not using the card, they will not be attracting any recompense or reimbursement, but it will be possible to follow the ridership pattern. That is the overwhelming advantage of smartcards, and I believe that the Minister said in Committee that it was her intention, if possible, to introduce the scheme with smartcards.
	Let me turn now from the adequacy of central Government funding to the relationship between operators and local authorities. I shall explain why new clause 3 is relevant and applicable in this regard. As the experience of the 2006 concessionary bus travel scheme has shown, there has been considerable disagreement between local authorities and the Government. There was also considerable disagreement between local authorities and bus operators as to the level of reimbursement provided for carrying concessionary fares.
	The Government have stipulated that the reimbursement should be on a "no better off, no worse off" basis, but there is some dispute as to exactly what that means. It is clear that the 60-odd appeals that were initially registered with the Secretary of State by operators over reimbursement arrangements suggest that there is the potential for problems. Reimbursement on a "no better off, no worse off" basis is, in reality, an extremely difficult balance to achieve. After all, the marginal cost to an operator of carrying a few extra passengers is virtually nil. However, when numbers reach the point at which extra vehicles have to be brought in and extra drivers hired, the cost is not only an operating cost but a capital cost. Should the local authority at that point be presented with a large bill for the capital cost, or merely with a bill for the operating cost reimbursement?
	A review of the systems put in place by concession authorities after two years of operation would allow the Government to establish whether costs were being borne fairly between authorities and operators. It would further enable the Government to establish best practice nationally and to advise concession authorities on how to improve efficiency and achieve savings. When introduced, the 2008 scheme will involve so many variables and unknowns that a review of the kind proposed by our new clause could be extremely valuable.
	A further concern is that the Bill does not lay down the mechanisms by which local authorities will be reimbursed by central Government for the cost of funding concessionary travel. The Government have said many times that the details have yet to be decided. Understandably, local authorities across the country are extremely worried about the lack of clarity over funding, and what the arrangements that are eventually put into place will mean for them.
	Given that the details of the funding arrangements are, at best, opaque, and that they are unlikely to become more transparent until after the passing of the Bill, we believe that the new clause would provide the concession authorities with a degree of reassurance. They would have some hope of redress, should they find themselves short-changed by the funding arrangements. As the Opposition made clear on Second Reading, there is some scope for some authorities in so-called hot spot or honeypot areas to find themselves heavily out of pocket. The funding for the 2006 scheme was shown to be insufficient in a number of areas, even when based on fairly static numbers for residents over 60. Because the nationwide eligibility for over-60s is established in the Bill, the potential for error will be hugely exacerbated.
	The new clause would oblige the Secretary of State to provide a review to Parliament, to ensure that the total sum of central Government funds made available to local authorities in the previous financial year for the provision of bus services and the funding of concessions on those services was appropriate.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that over the years in which the Conservatives were in government, numerous instances of various formulae being used to allocate money to different local authorities for different reasons were shown after only a short time to be significantly flawed? What we are asking for is therefore perfectly reasonable and sensible, and ought to be supported by anyone who saw the damage that previous formulae did in areas such as the overall funding for local government, resulting in massive council tax increases across the country.

Stephen Hammond: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his eloquent support for my new clause.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is making a typically good case for the new clause, which I support wholeheartedly. Does he agree that an unintended consequence might be that the proposals in the Bill could lead to local authorities having to cut bus services if the funding were not allocated properly? It would be a tragedy if a Bill whose principle of promoting public transport we all support were to have that effect. Is it not one of the main concerns for local authorities that they might have to cut services if the funding is not distributed adequately?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is correct. As I pointed out earlier, there is huge concern among local authorities about both the previous scheme and the possible impact of this scheme. The Minister will say that local authorities have discretion to provide extra services above the statutory minimum, but, again, that costs. If the funding formula is not correct, the discretion is, to all intents and purposes, worthless.

Jim Cousins: In response to the interventions from the hon. Members for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the stated preference of the Local Government Association, which is now controlled by his party, is to move towards formula funding as the basis for distributing central Government support, and away from funding based on actuals?

Stephen Hammond: That may be so, but it does not lead us anywhere unless the formula produces the correct amount of money. The Local Government Association also supports central Government giving local authorities the correct amount of money to undertake services. That is the issue in relation to the new clause, and that is why the new clause is relevant.

David Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Local Government Association, under the leadership of various different political parties, has always called for the ability to discuss problems, preferably before they arise, with Ministers? In requesting some form of review, we are merely asking for leaders of local authorities to be allowed to put their views to Ministers—through the Local Government Association if necessary, or, if not, perhaps as individuals—and to be listened to, and, if problems have arisen, for the Minister to go away and reconsider, or get his officials to do so. What on earth is unreasonable, and what is there to oppose, about that?

Stephen Hammond: As my hon. Friend says, what on earth is there to oppose about that? We shall see whether the Minister accepts such an extraordinarily sensible amendment.
	The new clause has two major advantages. First, it would highlight any continuation of a Government tendency to take credit for policies while passing the cost on to local authorities, as we have been discussing. Council tax has doubled in the past 10 years, which has hit the elderly and those on the lowest incomes hardest.

Gillian Merron: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Government funding of the statutory scheme. Will he clarify whether he believes that £1 billion is insufficient? If so, how much Government funding would be sufficient, and will his party commit itself to that?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Lady knows that local authorities have indicated that the £350 million that the Government provided for the 2006 scheme was not sufficient.

Gillian Merron: indicated dissent.

Stephen Hammond: Well, they have. I gave examples of two of them earlier, and am happy to do the same for the other 13 if the hon. Lady wishes. Clearly, the amount of money allocated by the Government on a percentage basis for the implementation of the 2006 scheme did not prove sufficient for a number of local authorities.

Gillian Merron: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he is referring to funding for the statutory scheme or funding for the discretionary elements on top? If the latter, those local decisions are for local authorities to make.

Stephen Hammond: The Minister is right: that is a matter for local authorities. I was describing the funding for the statutory scheme, and local authorities indicated clearly that they had not received enough money from the Government to fund that 2006 scheme. With regard to the Minister's initial intervention, I do not know yet whether £1 billion will be sufficient to fund the scheme. I do not doubt the Minister's integrity or sincerity in believing that the £1 billion that the Government say that they are providing is the right amount. That does not, however, negate the purpose of the new clause, which would allow us, after two years of operation—I accept that the transitional year may be unsteady—to ensure that the Minister's belief was correct, and if it proves not to have been correct, to review the matter. I see no contradiction whatever in that.

Lee Scott: Does not new clause 3 do exactly what the Minister was referring to? No one can say whether £1 billion or another figure is appropriate, so a review after two years would be a first-class way of establishing the correct figure.

Stephen Hammond: Indeed it would. I hope that after some reflection, the Minister will see the intent, significance and advantage of new clause 3.
	I have indicated that one of the advantages of the new clause would be to introduce some transparency and accountability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said on Second Reading:
	"There is no point in giving our pensioners free bus travel if they just have to pay the bills through their council tax instead."—[ Official Report, 14 May 2007; Vol. 460, c. 414.]
	The review, to be reported to Parliament, would allow local authorities to demonstrate to what degree the Government were providing free bus travel, and to what degree the Government were clobbering them to provide it.

Fraser Kemp: I realise that the hon. Gentleman would not have been tempted by my earlier intervention in relation to future spending commitments. Were his new clause carried, however, and were a review to conclude that there were shortfalls—he is right that there have been problems in the Tyne and Wear area, which I represent—would he fund those shortfalls through a redistribution from other English counties and transport authorities, or through new money? Will he give me a clue, because I am tempted by his seductive arguments?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting intervention—but he is really just rephrasing his previous intervention. As has been indicated, the Minister is hoping to introduce a smartcard, and for all I know, there may be savings. In that case, extra funding, or redistribution, might not be required. No one can be certain about that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to make uncosted spending commitments, but I shall reject that opportunity.
	The second benefit of the new clause is that it will throw some light on the calculations. We have been discussing the £1 billion figure. The 2006 scheme was afforded £350 million of Government money, and the 2008 scheme will be afforded another £250 million. The other £400 million, to which the Minister has just referred, will be provided in various ways. To be certain that that funding is coming through, it is vital that the requirement for the review be enacted. The new clause provides for a review of the funding allocation arrangements two years after the commencement of the 2008 scheme. It will take some time, as I have said, for the true extent of the take-up and the costs of the concessionary fares to become apparent.
	What is certain is that some authorities have been underfunded and some have been overfunded. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), who is not in his place today, but who was a member of the Committee, described the problems that his local authority faced, and I have described the problems of several others. The review, were it to be supported today, would provide the basis for local authorities to appeal against their funding allocation, and it would also provide an opportunity for central Government to show that they have funded the scheme properly.

David Davies: Has anyone done any studies of the local authorities that have been underfunded and those that have been overfunded? Past experience suggests to me—perhaps I am a little cynical after eight years of doing this job, albeit in two different Parliaments—that previous local government funding formula changes have resulted in Labour-run local authorities in certain areas of Wales, some of which have not even been able to keep their books in order, receiving rather more money than they are entitled to while well run rural local authorities, Conservative and Liberal Democrat alike, have had their funding cut in a disgusting fashion, resulting in higher council taxes for all. Have there been any studies of how this formula is likely to operate, and which local authorities may benefit and which lose out?

Stephen Hammond: I am not sure that such studies have been undertaken, but I suggest that if my hon. Friend's researcher has nothing to do in the summer recess, that would be an admirable piece of work that would benefit the whole House. I would certainly be grateful for it.
	As I said on Second Reading, funding needs to follow the passenger. The Government have not been clear about how that will happen, so this review is essential. Unless central Government provide the correct moneys for the scheme, local authorities will have to cut other services or raise council tax. The funding mechanisms also need to be clear. The correct and reasonable recompense that an operator should receive must be received by bus operators from local authorities. Without that, the scheme is doomed. If local authorities have established a partnership and there is correct recompense, there will be clear views on the total ridership and cost. Two years is a sensible and appropriate time for the conduct of a review.
	My Conservative colleagues and I wish to make it clear that we are not in the business of making uncosted spending commitments. The new clause does not allow Labour Members to make any mischievous accusations of that sort. In two years, the costs of the scheme, as currently defined, will be much clearer and we will also know the take-up rates and whether an extension scheme—that could assist the aim of social inclusion—would be possible.
	The new clause is obviously sensible and desirable. It would ensure appropriate funding, transparency and accountability. I can only hope that, in the spirit of change in the Government, elucidated by the new Prime Minister last night, the Minister will not revert to the previous era's habit of rejecting all Opposition amendments, but instead will endorse and support the new clause.

Jim Cousins: This is clearly an excellent Bill that commands the support of the whole House. I hope that it will benefit those who receive the specific benefits of the Bill, as well as being a turning point in the recovery of our bus networks, which must be a wider object of policy for every Member of Parliament.
	I admired the skill shown by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) in giving his colleagues little holiday projects, although I hope that his example will not be taken up too widely in the House. He was correct to say that the heart of the matter is how the extra benefits will be paid for. He was also right to draw attention to variations across the country, which have a clear root. Car ownership, pensioner incomes and the density of bus networks all vary across the country, and those factors produce a dramatic variation in the financial consequences of the concessions being offered to pensioners.
	That variation affects Tyne and Wear very particularly. Car ownership in the county is probably the lowest outside London in mainland Britain. Pensioner incomes are among the lowest in the country and the density of bus networks is therefore greater than anywhere outside London. The effect of the offer of concessions is therefore much greater than in other areas. Nexus, the passenger transport executive in Tyne and Wear, has told me that the number of bus trips per year per head of population is 186 in London, 124 in Tyne and Wear, 109 across the generality of the metropolitan counties and only 33 in the rest of England. However, I acknowledge the force of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Ms Barlow) that there are areas outside the metropolitan counties that have dense bus networks and high take-up of concessionary passes.

Fraser Kemp: On the point about the density of bus networks, Tyne and Wear is often regarded as an urban area, but that is not the case. For instance, my constituency, which is the largest in the area, has many isolated former pit villages that greatly rely on buses. Does my hon. Friend agree that some of the problems that we have faced in the past few years have had a big impact on those isolated mining communities?

Jim Cousins: I absolutely acknowledge that. My hon. Friend draws attention to a very important point. In the former metropolitan county of Tyne and Wear area, bus networks are dense everywhere relative to the situation common in the rest of Britain. That is the case not just in city areas like Newcastle, which I represent, but also in the outlying former mining areas that he represents. His point is correct. Within the county of Tyne and Wear, no distinction can be drawn between the city and the rural. Both experience common benefits of such schemes and common difficulties if they are not funded correctly.
	The extension of the 2006 local free fares scheme across the country will reinforce those variations and not mitigate them. The use of the national scheme in areas that already have high take-up, high bus usage, dense bus networks and low car ownership will be much greater than elsewhere. It is people from areas such as the one represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) who will take great advantage of the national scheme when it becomes available, so that they can use the dense bus networks within the county of Tyne and Wear. The national scheme will not mitigate the variations; it will tend to reinforce them.

Paul Rowen: I am following the hon. Gentleman's point closely. Does he agree that there is an additional problem with the national scheme because in certain areas—honeypots or tourist destinations such as Blackpool and Scarborough—an influx of people will use the services, which is not reflected in the revenue support grant? It cannot take account of people who visit those places.

Jim Cousins: I am grateful for that intervention. It draws attention to two significant things. First, the national scheme will compound the difficulties of financing. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that a formula basis of distribution of support cannot inherently deal with the difficulties that we are talking about.
	There is a difficulty with formula grant support. By its very nature, it cannot pick up the striking local variations that we are likely to see and which will increase as the scheme goes national. The formula approach produces winners and losers. It is in the nature of winners and losers from formula funding support that the losers become clear immediately. The winners, very wisely, tend to keep quiet about it. That there are winners and losers, however, cannot be doubted. It is a direct result of the formula funding.
	I have studied the Public Bill Committee debates carefully, and that problem exercised hon. Members. In the course of those debates, my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) offered a solution, which was to withhold a certain amount of formula grant support in a special pot so that it could be paid out later to mitigate the effect of the variations in take-up. I have thought carefully about that, and new clause 1, tabled by the Conservatives, in a sense reflects that. However, I do not favour that solution for two reasons. First, if we withhold a proportion of grant, it will generate all sorts of knock-on problems. Secondly, the increasing use by local councils of judicial review against the Government will become a significant problem in the distribution of the retained money because the factual basis for that will be challenged.
	That was the Government's difficulty in dealing with the problems of Tyne and Wear at the outset in 2006. Had they gone down the path of introducing a special scheme to deal with the special problems of Tyne and Wear—I know that they considered that—there is no doubt in my mind that that special scheme would have triggered a range of judicial reviews by authorities that felt that their position had been worsened by it. Given the particular place of London in this context, London boroughs would undoubtedly have taken the Government to court had a special scheme for Tyne and Wear been introduced.
	I have recognised the Government's difficulty throughout the controversy about these matters in the county of Tyne and Wear. Had they attempted to deal with the specific problems facing Tyne and Wear—and similar problems affect other authorities, such as Brighton—legal challenges would have followed immediately, and the whole scheme might well have been unpicked. A rich crop of judicial reviews should not be the object of any proposals made in the House.
	My amendment would take advantage of the very important clause 9. Clearly, the Government have prepared against some of the difficulties that have been set out becoming serious problems. The clause provides that the Secretary of State can take over responsibility for the financial support of the statutory national scheme to be introduced in April 2008, and the consequential responsibility for reimbursement.
	I also understand the Government's concern about negotiations over reimbursement for the purposes of the statutory concessions, local or national. Authorities around the country will deal with different operators, with the result that different methods of reimbursement may be adopted. The Department for Transport is worried that that pattern of variable negotiations over reimbursement may in turn create perverse incentives. The talks may also be influenced by incompetent negotiating skills, or informal collusion between authorities and the major operators in their areas.
	Those are the difficulties inherent in the reimbursement negotiations, but it is very important to ensure that the standards of reimbursement have common characteristics that apply nationwide. Apart from the very small local operators, the bus industry is now a big national operation made up of three or four main providers. It is extremely important that local authorities work to common standards in their reimbursement negotiations, and that they do not allow themselves to be picked off. They must not accept fare increases for the non-statutory schemes that are being introduced, as they would then trigger consequential increases in the costs of the concession—a difficulty that is built into the present architecture of the way that reimbursement is conducted.

David Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the privatisation of the bus companies might prevent the problem that he has described? Through competition, the various operators are able to offer lower fares, but it would be difficult for one to hike up costs to get greater reimbursement from central Government, via the local authority, because a rival could respond by submitting a cheaper tender the following year. Is that not one of the advantages of privatisation and competition? That approach has been robustly supported by the Opposition—and, more recently, even by Labour Members.

Jim Cousins: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the very wise words of Adam Smith. He was an honest Scotsman, and this, of course, is a time to be singing the praises of such men. His profile is now to be found on our banknotes, and in one remark he observed that, when three or four business men gather together, a conspiracy against the public was waiting to happen. So it has proved with bus privatisation.
	We now have a small number of big operators. In my region, we have recently seen the sale of a body of operations in the town of Darlington, which Stagecoach had managed to capture after years of competition. The whole operation has now been sold en bloc to another national-level operator. We are not now dealing with a variety of bus companies that are all small and locally based. I know that such things exist, but the bulk of bus operations are now run by a small number of big national operators with some of the characteristics of a cartel. The block sale of all the operations in Darlington from Stagecoach to another operator in the past fortnight indicates the kind of things that happen.
	Similarly, if the Government were to accept the responsibility for running the national statutory concession, the issues of reimbursement could be resolved. The Government could then negotiate forcefully with the limited number of big operators that is the reality of modern bus networks. The debate about the unfairness of the grant regime could itself be resolved and the Government could be reassured that grant given for the purposes of supporting the statutory concession would not be recycled inside local authority finances to pay for other activities. Again, if the Government met the costs of the national statutory concession, all this churning of grant through council and passenger transport authority budgets, with all the knock-on effects for council tax, could be resolved.
	There would be an additional attraction for the Government if they took on the responsibility for operating the national statutory concession. They could produce a nationally branded scheme. Such a scheme could be supported by smartcard operations in the way that some Opposition Members have sensibly suggested, but even if it was not, a nationally branded scheme would be a much better incentive for the recovery of bus networks, which must be one of the objectives of the Bill, apart from simply operating the concession itself.
	A nationally branded scheme would bring some benefit to the Government of the day and some clarity about how schemes were funded and supported. Of course, outside the national statutory scheme there could still be proper debate locally about extensions to the national scheme. For example, in London the freedom pass kicks in at 9 am. In the county of Tyne and Wear, it kicks in at 9.30 am. There is a debate to be had about how the national scheme, which functions from 9.30 in the morning, could be brought forward to 9 am. Those debates could be had locally without being confused by the wider arguments about the fairness of the grant support.
	The rights conferred in the Bill will create new demand for bus services up and down the country. The Bill will lead to an expansion of bus services up and down the country. If the national statutory concession is nationally funded, the extra demand that will be created can then be supported by the Government. It would not be a problem for local council tax payers or local authorities. The rising level of bus use and the improvement in the quality of bus services that we hope will result from this Bill would then be seen as it properly should, as a collateral benefit, not, as it would be if we kept the present obsolete structure of formula funding, as a problem rather than a benefit.
	It will be impossibly difficult to achieve through annual grant awards by formula proper support for the rising use of buses and the extension of bus networks unless the national statutory scheme is operated, funded and negotiated by the Department for Transport. That is the purpose of my amendments, and I commend them to the House. Indeed, the Government must have contemplated that course of action anyway because otherwise they would not have provided for that possibility in clause 9. I very much hope that the clause will not prove to be a residual, fallback position, but that the Government can build on it to introduce a nationally branded scheme, which is nationally funded and nationally negotiated, so that all the local difficulties that have been the by-product of doing something that in itself is commendable and good can be avoided.

Paul Rowen: The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill. We believe it will go a long way towards dealing with social exclusion; its introduction has the support of the whole House. Notwithstanding that fact, however, in Committee we raised a number of concerns and issues that we wanted resolved, some of which were fully discussed but some of which are still of concern. The new clause proposed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) addresses one of those points.
	In response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins), although as a general principle we welcome the introduction of a national scheme, we believe that the right and proper place for its administration and operation is with local authorities and passenger transport authorities. We certainly would not support the Government's taking over that responsibility.
	Many Members in Committee and today talked about previous experience of the introduction of local concessionary bus schemes. That gives us sensible pointers to some of the issues and concerns with regard to the extension to a national scheme, and I do not intend to rehearse or repeat the arguments that have already been so eloquently put. However, earlier this year, I tabled a question to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport about the number of visitors to various places and the most popular visitor destinations in Britain. Although the DCMS was able to give fairly accurate figures for the number of visitors, it had no information about the number who might qualify under the Bill for a concessionary bus pass. That brings us to the crux of the problem with the scheme. The Minister has assured us that, with £250 million, the Bill is adequately funded, but the reality is that none of us knows whether that is the case. We do not and cannot know until the Bill is in operation what the effect of concessionary bus travel on individual authorities will be.
	It is clear that certain authorities, whether we call them honeypots or tourist destinations, will be disproportionately affected by the Bill. For example, throughout the year the majority of visitors to Blackpool—a Lancashire town I know well—are retired people and they will qualify to use the bus services in the town while they are there. It is clearly wrong that Blackpool borough should therefore have to pay the cost of those visitors coming and using the service while they are on holiday in Blackpool. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central said, Blackpool will not receive from the formula grant any recognition of that use of the service. As has been repeated, the formula grant is a blunt instrument. My borough is very much likes those in the north-east, in that 32 per cent. of the people in Rochdale do not own a car. They rely wholly upon the use of public transport. Their needs will be reflected to some extent in the formula grant, but not totally. The problem with any formula grant system is that it produces winners and losers.
	In Committee, we moved several amendments. One was designed to ensure that the national scheme was ITSO compliant, so that there could be an accurate measure of the number of people using buses. Although we might hope to achieve that in the next two or three years, we are certainly will not achieve it by next April. In another amendment, we wanted to make sure that local authorities were properly funded and we sought a commitment from the Minister that she would deliver on that. That amendment was not accepted. Then we supported the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and similar to one moved by my noble Friends in the other place. It would have provided for some money to be moved back.
	The Minister accepted none of those proposals. Although new clause 3 is not necessarily as strong as I would like it to be, I believe that we need a commitment from the Government that they will take the issue seriously. Once the Bill is up and running, the problems are likely to get greater. We have seen this year for the first time, outside London, that the number of people using buses has risen. However, we need a proper analysis of who those people are. More than a cursory glance will demonstrate that they are predominantly those who have a concessionary bus pass. I welcome that. One of the Bill's laudable aims is to promote social inclusion. But if the Bill is not properly funded, the burden will fall on local authorities and that will cause disproportionate cuts that will probably affect just the people who benefit from travelling on buses. Whether those cuts are to social care or to the provision of leisure services, or whether groups such as young people end up, as happened in the north-east, facing increasing fares, that will not be right and proper.
	I therefore hope that the Minister will consider the new clause. It would not alter one jot or iota of what the Government want to do, but it would commit the Department and future Ministers to carrying out a proper review, to ensure that the operation of scheme can be reviewed once it is fully in place and that we can have a proper discussion of what the funding needs are, where the money should come from and how it is to be delivered.

Charles Walker: I have followed the debate with great interest. My postbag, like that of many Members of the House, contains many letters each week from people concerned about bus services both across the constituency of Broxbourne that I represent and the county of Hertfordshire, in which Broxbourne is located.
	We have a sort of monster on our doorstep; it is called London. London absorbs a huge amount of resources, and I am interested in how we shall manage the issues of reimbursement and the allocation of resources for funding. Over the past decade, many of our bus services have been sucked into London. If someone wants to get from one part of my constituency to another part or to another part of Hertfordshire, often they have to travel through London. Sometimes they have to travel for an hour and half through London to reach somewhere in Hertfordshire that is no more than 4 or 5 miles away as the crow flies. That poses some questions. If the bulk of the journey takes place in London—although it originates in Hertfordshire—will Hertfordshire taxpayers fund that journey and will the reimbursement be allocated to Hertfordshire or to authorities in London, where the bulk of the journey takes place? I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
	We need to look seriously at new clause 3 because it would enable us to have a periodic review of how funding is allocated to pay for services. It would be devastating for local council tax payers in Hertfordshire if we ended up funding additional bus services that are routed through London—services that are primarily for the benefit of Londoners, but whose cost would fall on my constituents.
	I hope that the funding formula does not act as a perverse distortion on the market, drawing even more of our services away from the county and into London. That would be disastrous at a time when local hospitals are being reorganised and are going to be moved even further away from my constituency. We face the closure of Chase Farm hospital in north London and the transfer of services to hospitals further north in the county. If more of our bus providers run services through London, it will be even harder for my constituents, many of whom are elderly, to access services to take them to other hospitals. I have a lot of sympathy with the new clause and I hope that the Government will give it serious consideration.

Alan Beith: When the Prime Minister, in his then capacity as Chancellor, announced that there was to be a national bus pass scheme, he created an expectation and a hope among many people that they would be able to get to their relatives, friends, hospital and doctor using their bus pass. At the moment, many people in many constituencies find that they are not able to do so because of the cross-border problems. They depend on enhancement at the expense of the local authority.
	The importance of the new clause is that it calls for a review of funding on the basis of whether local authorities have had enough money to carry out the scheme. I want to draw particular attention to the relevance of that to border areas, where the Bill as the Government propose to implement it will not solve the problem and where local authority enhancement will still be required. The Government have made it pretty clear up to now that they are in no hurry to negotiate a reciprocal scheme with the Scottish Executive or the Welsh Assembly Government. In the words of the Secretary of State in an earlier debate, that is regarded as a matter for "another time."
	That means that local authorities such as the borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, which has a population of 26,000—it is a very small authority—would still have to put in extra money to give access across the border so that people could get to their nearest shops or hospital, or to friends and relatives. At the same time, the funding arrangements that the new clause seeks to expose would put the authority under great pressure anyway, because the area also has one of the highest proportions of old age pensioners in the country—the highest of all being in Christchurch, which my wife used to represent and which was mentioned earlier. She well knows that that is top of the league, but the little borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed is also very high up. Where the bus journeys are long and the reimbursement element accordingly large, the financial pressures of the scheme will be great.
	At the same time, whereas other local authorities will no longer have to put in extra schemes to enable people to get across local authority boundaries—as they do now in many areas—Berwick will still have to put in some kind of extra scheme to enable people to travel on local journeys to Eyemouth, to the doctor's in Coldstream, and to Kelso.
	Clearly, I want the Government to use the powers that they are rightly giving themselves in clause 10 to go ahead with negotiating a scheme, which they still have time to do. New clause 3 offers the second-best solution: a review after two years that would demonstrate conclusively that the scheme had not worked satisfactorily in border areas. I support new clause 3 on the basis that if all else fails, there must be a mechanism of showing that border areas need help.
	A better solution would be for the Government to use the time between now and next spring to get into negotiations with the new Government in Scotland, difficult though that might be. They might find negotiations easier with the part-Labour, part-nationalist Government in Wales. If they do not carry out such negotiations, the new clause, if accepted, will reveal that there is a serious problem in border areas. Such a problem should not arise, so I ask the Minister to think again.

David Davies: I have a slight sense of déjà vu because some years ago, perhaps even before Ministers had thought about a concessionary scheme for England, I, like all my Conservative colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, defended and supported wholeheartedly the initiation of such a scheme in Wales. We supported it then and we support it now because the Conservative party has always believed that the public have the right to choose to use safe, efficient and reliable forms of public transport. While large amounts of tax are raised from car fuel, the public are unfortunately not given the proper choice of catching buses instead. They deserve such a choice and the situation needs to be reversed.
	This scheme is good for everyone, not just the over-60s who will be entitled to a bus pass. If demand for bus services increases, especially in rural areas, it is likely that more services will be laid on. The scheme is thus good for anyone who wishes to use public transport. It is good for car users, too, because if more people use buses, roads will be less congested. If the scheme is properly managed, we will have a win-win-win situation for all those who use transport to get from A to B, which is virtually all of us.
	The key factor is whether the scheme is properly managed. Several unexpected problems arose after the scheme was introduced in Wales. Many people will be aware of the market town of Chepstow, which is on the border of my constituency. Chepstow itself is in Wales, in the county of Monmouthshire. However, part of Chepstow is on the English side of the border. Pensioners who live in the Welsh part of Chepstow in the constituency of Monmouth receive a free bus pass that they may use to travel as far as Hereford, which, of course, is in England—Owain Glyndwr did not get quite that far. However, people who live in Tidenham, which is just across the river and somewhat on the outskirts of Chepstow, cannot get hold of a free bus pass to travel into the towns in Wales in which many of them do their shopping. They will not be able to do so after the introduction of the scheme under the Bill because the cross-border problems have not been sorted out.
	When the Minister considers funding, I hope that one of her first actions will be to try to ensure that a scheme is introduced whereby people can use their passes throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. As an unashamed Unionist, I am disappointed that people will be restricted to their constituent nations, rather than be able to exercise their right to travel the length and breadth of the United Kingdom. They have paid their taxes over the years for such a right.
	The scheme in Wales gave rise not just to cross-border issues, but to enormous problems involving the allocation of funding, many of which have been mentioned today. Some local authorities have received more funding than they might have been expected to get, whereas other received less. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) eloquently set out the way in which such funding inequalities can arise.
	I am a bit of a cynic, and I have suggested before that formulas have sometimes been used in a particular way, quite deliberately, to benefit certain local authorities at the expense of others for political reasons. I have certainly seen that happen in Wales and I want to ensure that people in England are protected from that. What can possibly be unfair about suggesting that Ministers look at the formula in two years' time to ensure that everything is being done in an equitable manner? If nothing else, that will protect existing bus services, and protect people from inordinate rises in council tax, such as those that have taken place over the past 10 years. As I have said before—I will repeat it quite a few times in the years ahead—council tax has risen by 184 per cent. over the past 10 years in Monmouthshire. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon talked about a doubling of council tax, but my constituents would have been absolutely delighted if their council tax had merely doubled. Many of them are struggling to pay their mortgages.
	Many other problems have arisen in Wales as unexpected consequences of the Act. In some areas, a sort of impromptu park-and-ride scheme has developed; people drive into towns—often, I am told, in their Mercedes-Benz—and park on outlying streets, and then use the local bus service to ride into town. There is nothing wrong with that. It is a free country, and everyone would support people's right to do that. However, it means that the local authority to which those people apply for their concessionary pass ends up getting lots of funding, while the local authority that pays for them to use the buses does not. That is one example of the sort of inequity that could arise in the funding formula. We need to make sure that the Government are aware of all those problems, and the many others that are likely to arise, and we need to ensure that they have the means with which to deal with them. If they fail to deal with the problems, there will be a reduction in services, which is what all of us are fighting against.
	There is also the issue of rural areas. Many rural areas have to subsidise all or most of the bus routes that are in place. I believe that all rural areas are grossly disadvantaged by virtually every funding formula used by the Government. I am sorry to have to say it, and perhaps the Minister will like to argue the point, but I see that as very much a political decision. For example, in the county of Monmouthshire, the funding formula that is used to fund local government generally used to take proper account of sparsity, and that is absolutely right, because of course it always costs more to deliver services in a rural area, where there are much greater distances for buses, or any other services, to travel. The last funding formula change reduced much of the weighting that was given to take account of sparsity. It also resulted in sparsity being calculated with reference to how long it takes to get from A to B, not by road, but as the crow flies. That meant that many isolated rural communities were counted almost as part of urban conurbations under the formula, and the local authority lost out as a result.
	That sort of subtle change, which most people could not be expected to pick up on, has been deliberately used to disadvantage rural areas. We do not want the same thing to happen with the formula used for allocating money for transport. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon—the Front-Bench spokesman for transport—has not suggested that there is anything wrong with the scheme; he merely suggested that it would be wise of the Government to consult the Local Government Association in two years' time to make sure that the money is being allocated in a fair and reasonable fashion. It puzzles me that anyone would argue that that is not the wise and sensible thing to do. I say again that it could prevent bus services from being cut, prevent council taxes from rising, and ensure that local authorities are listened to, in a system in which there is accountability. That is why all those in the House who care about supporting bus services should support new clause 3 this afternoon.

Gillian Merron: We return once more to this important Bill, and in particular to the issue of funding for local authorities, which we discussed at great length in Committee, including the arrangements for the reimbursement of bus operators.
	May I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Jim Cousins) and his near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp), for recognising the importance of the Bill to passengers, to the improvement of bus services—and the figures are coming through—to efforts to tackle social exclusion, and to the improvement of the public transport network. That is why I am great supporter and advocate of this Labour Government Bill. I appreciate, too, the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne about saving the Government from judicial review, and I am happy to take his advice.
	I shall make some general points before coming to the specific matters raised by the amendments. I have previously stated—and I am happy to restate it—that I agree absolutely with the sentiment that local authorities should indeed be adequately funded by central Government for the costs of administering that mandatory concession. After all, it is the Government's policy to fund fully new statutory burdens. Let us be honest: it is in everyone's interest in the House that we get it right, and that is what I am keen to do. As hon. Members know—and I will restate it for the record—the Government will provide up to an extra £250 million of funding a year for the proposed new national bus concession. That is in addition to the significant extra funding that we have already provided to local authorities for the implementation last year of free off-peak local bus travel within local authorities. We provided £350 million in 2006-07, and £367.5 million in 2007-08. We remain confident that there is sufficient overall to fund the extra costs to local authorities to provide that welcome improvement, which has benefited millions of people. I shall come to our calculations in a few moments and explain them.

Charles Walker: On reflection, I was rather inarticulate in expressing my concerns. Many bus routes start at Waltham Cross, which is in Hertfordshire and on the border with London, but 90 to 95 per cent. of the benefits go to London. Owing to the fact that the routes originate in Hertfordshire, we will fund the full cost of the scheme, although 95 per cent. of the distance covered falls within London to the benefit of Londoners.

Gillian Merron: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he made his point perfectly clear. Travel concession authorities will pay for all concessionaires boarding in their area, irrespective of who issued the pass and where the journey ends. What matters is the funding to the travel concession areas, and that is what we will discuss today.

David Davies: The main point that we were making was not so much about the amount of money, although that is clearly important, but about the way in which that money is divided up. If the Minister is about to give us an explanation, I shall await it with interest.

Gillian Merron: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement.
	For the benefit of hon. Members who did not participate in Committee, I should say that it is true that there is no mention of the funding for concessionary travel in the Bill, but I can assure the House that that is for very good reasons. As we know, circumstances change and flexibility needs to be built into the legislation to enable future improvements to concessionary travel to be made as efficiently and effectively as possible. It would not be appropriate or wise to lock ourselves into a particular approach now, as the important issue of funding is currently being considered and discussed across Government and beyond. The existing arrangements contain appropriate checks and balances to ensure that public funds are spent wisely, which is something with which we would all concur; an incentive for local authorities to reimburse cost-effectively by a fair amount; and the right of appeal for any operator who believes they have been disadvantaged. Importantly, the system is fair to the taxpayer and the operator alike.
	The extra funding that the Government have announced for the new concession already includes a generous allowance, both for uncertainty over future travel patterns and the difficulties of allocating money on a formula basis. The sum of up to £250 million extra per year is based on a number of key assumptions. Hon. Members may be interested to know that those include an extra 100 million journeys generated and a pass take-up rate of 85 per cent. Once distributed, it will result in double-digit percentage increases for most travel concession authorities against budgets that already include discretionary spend. The extra costs will not be as much as many people may think, because many of the new trips will be generated travel, which will not require full reimbursement. I hope that that gives some indication about the sums involved. The House should be concerned about the full amount, as well as the distribution, which I am on record as saying is extremely important. The assumptions are generous. As I said, we have allowed for a pass take-up rate of 85 per cent. In some areas of England, pass take-up is below 40 per cent. at present, so we are confident that the extra funding is sufficient to cover the total extra costs to local authorities.
	It is important to recognise that the freedom and flexibilities provided by unhypothecated formula grant, which was discussed earlier, are generally supported by local authorities. They have long argued against having their hands tied by hypothecated funding streams. Concessionary fares reimbursement is only one of the many obligations that authorities must meet from their council tax receipts and from the funding provided by central Government through the formula grant process.
	The Local Government Association strongly supports a specific grant for the extra funding for the national bus concession, at least on a temporary basis. However, we need to be clear that such a move would be a break from the policy of greater freedom and flexibilities in funding which is generally welcomed by the local government community. It would also be inconsistent with the basis for allocating existing funding, and we would need good reasons for making such a change. However, the Department for Transport, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury are looking carefully at the merits of different funding mechanisms for statutory concessions.

Alan Beith: One thing that the formula cannot do is recognise that there are some authorities that will still have to enhance their schemes if some of their citizens are to be able to get to relatively nearby facilities on the other side of a national boundary. That will persist until a reciprocal scheme is introduced. Therefore those authorities have to meet more out of their council tax and out of the formula than most authorities, which will no longer have the problem of making special arrangements for cross-border travel.

Gillian Merron: Perhaps this is an appropriate point at which to remind ourselves that the Bill covers off-peak concessionary national travel within England. Any enhancement beyond that is a matter for local discretion and the Bill allows for that. I shall shortly deal with devolved Administrations, who I know are a matter of interest.
	Once we have decided on the funding route we will consult local authorities on the distribution, in line with existing statutory requirements.

Jim Cousins: My hon. Friend is about to move on to a topic that has engaged several hon. Members in the debate, but before she does so, will she set out how her Department is considering variations of funding from the funding formula and, in particular, how it might use the powers that it is taking in clause 9?

Gillian Merron: A number of hon. Members asked about how we will deal with hot spots, as they are called, where there is particular pressure on areas such as my constituency, Lincoln, which people are happy to visit, and we look forward to welcoming them. I understand the concerns expressed about the distribution of funding, especially in respect of those visitor hot spots. The overriding principle is that extra money should be directed to where extra costs fall. We should recognise hot spots, so far as it is possible to do so. Various options are being discussed in the concessionary fares working group, which involves representatives from all tiers of local government—districts, counties, unitaries and PTEs as well as operators. We are, of course, also working with the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Treasury on various options.
	In looking at the wide variety of data sources that might help to develop the best possible formula distribution, we are examining issues such as visitor figures, tourist beds, retail floor space and bus patronage. We hope to have reached a decision on the preferred route by the summer, when we will consult widely on the formula basis for distribution. I hope that that helps my hon. Friend.
	New clause 3 includes the exact text of an amendment that was defeated on a vote in Committee. I see very little benefit in introducing a requirement on the Secretary of State to review the arrangements for the allocation of funding to local authorities two years after the legislation is commenced. We debated the proposal in Committee, as well as the idea of another review of the reimbursement of bus operators by local authorities. The amendment has not changed, and nor has my position. There is very little to be gained from new clause 3. We have already embarked on a great deal of informal consultation with local authorities and other interested parties about the issues surrounding the implementation of the national bus concession.
	I have explained the matter and the role of the concessionary fares working group on a number of occasions. Again, I emphasise that the Department for Communities and Local Government has already implemented a well-established annual process for consulting local authorities informally and formally about the formula grant distribution. I am a little disappointed this afternoon, because in Committee I invited the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) to suggest how we might improve things now rather than in two years' time, but all we have before us is exactly the same amendment.
	I gently remind the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) that concessionary travel is a devolved issue. Local authorities in Wales can pass the full costs of the scheme to the National Assembly, and it is therefore unlikely that the situation that he described with regard to increases in council tax relates to concessionary fares.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) is not currently in her place. She referred to a charge for passes claimed but not used. That is a misunderstanding, because reimbursement is made in respect of actual concessionary travel and not on the number of passes issued.
	The suggestion that there should be a review in two years' time contains another contradiction. Local government funding involves a three-year settlement. If we were to accept the new clause—I ask the House not to do so—we would create uncertainty at a time when local authorities are asking for more certainty.
	On funding in the Tyne and Wear area, I recently met my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and Nexus. We had a constructive discussion on how we can go forward, which is what I intend to do.
	On mutual recognition, the nature of a devolved Administration is, again as I have said before, that it will take devolved decisions. Our priority is to get a workable national concession in England, perhaps in the first instance in April 2008. Local authorities can make their own arrangements across borders, if they fund them, which is an option that will be available under the Bill. We will continue to hold discussions with devolved Administrations.

Alan Beith: What is delaying the Minister? Assuming that she stays in her job, she has got until next spring to negotiate in time for the arrival of the new national bus pass. What is to stop her reaching an agreement with the Scottish Executive in that time? If they were to refuse to do it, it would not be her fault, but if she does not attempt to reach an agreement in that time scale, it will be her fault.

Gillian Merron: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for offering me a way out should success not be mine. Our priority is a workable scheme for England that everyone understands. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations, and in the interim it is possible for local authorities to manage the current situation.
	Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 would have major implications for the general funding of local authorities. It would not be possible to introduce those changes for April next year. In any case, the amendments do not set a time frame for commencement; I am not sure whether that is intentional. It would be only right and proper to consult on any changes to the fundamentals of the administration of the mandatory concessions. In fact, it is not clear from our discussions that local authorities would favour such a centralised approach as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central. I assure him that we fully considered a range of options. Having said that, we are not ruling out changes to the administration in future. This is an enabling and a flexible Bill.
	Bearing in mind everything that I have said today and on several previous occasions, I hope that Opposition Members and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central will agree that new clause 3 and amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are unnecessary and duly withdraw the motion.

Stephen Hammond: As the Minister said, in Committee we discussed funding for the Bill at great length, because it is absolutely central to the Bill. I said in Committee that this was an excellent amendment that would enhance the Bill, and I still think so. Nothing that I have heard from the Minister this afternoon suggests that there is any reason not to put the new clause into the Bill, and I therefore wish to test the will of the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 157, Noes 257.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1
	 — 
	The national concession

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 1, line 19, at end insert—
	'(d) is taken on a service which has three or more stops on its route,
	(e) is not taken on a service where there is a commentary (live or recorded) which is primarily provided for the purposes of tourism, and
	(f) is not taken on a service where there are one or more seats bookable in advance.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 6, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
	'(4A) For the purposes of this section a disabled person is a person who—
	(a) is blind or partially sighted,
	(b) is profoundly or severely deaf,
	(c) is without speech,
	(d) has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to walk,
	(e) does not have arms or has long-term loss of both arms,
	(f) has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or
	(g) would be defined as having a mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities in accordance with section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as amended, or
	(h) would, if he applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his application refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness) otherwise than on the ground of persistent misuse of drugs or alcohol,'.
	No. 9, page 2, line 30, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
	No. 10, in clause 4, page 4, line 18, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Stephen Hammond: Amendment No. 8 seeks to clarify the definition of services on which concessionary journeys can be taken. That is a concern across England, but it is a particular issue in London. London Councils, as the body running the concessionary fare scheme on behalf of the boroughs in London, has indicated to me that it particularly supports the amendment.
	Although London has the most generous concessionary fare scheme in the country, the current freedom pass is not valid on some bus services, because they do not form part of the London bus network and are operated under what are known as London service permits, issued by Transport for London. According to the current definition of an eligible service, London Councils has estimated that the concession could apply to 118 of those services, operated by 51 different companies, from next April. Most people, however, would recognise only about 13 of those as local bus services.
	Where a local bus service is clearly provided, which all eligible persons could use, there is no question but that the concession should apply. The current definition of an eligible service, however, could include special events services, park-and-ride services—where a bus fare is charged rather than a car parking fee—open-top bus services and many of the express coach services starting in London. Clearly, those are not what most people would call local bus services. They should not be included in the concession, but London Councils and I estimate that under the current Bill, all those routes would be eligible for the new concessionary fares.
	The Minister will no doubt say that she has the power to make an order if there proves to be a need to clarify the definition of an eligible service. In the interim, however, that will merely result in uncertainty for everyone: uncertainty for operators as to whether they should accept concessions and whether they will get reimbursement; uncertainty for local authorities, as they will not know for sure whom they should negotiate with; and most importantly, uncertainty for pass holders as to whether they can use their pass. That is not efficient, and many of the organisations involved will not be able to plan ahead. That is why my hon. Friends and I have tabled the amendment. The amendment would exclude some of the more obvious examples of services that are not truly local bus services. I have suggested three exclusions. The first is services with no intermediate stops between the point of departure and the end destination. A topical example is the special service to Chelsea flower show from Victoria station. Another example is park-and-ride services. Where parking is free and a bus fare is charged, it would be odd for the concessionary traveller to benefit when they would not benefit where the bus was free and the parking was charged for.
	The second exclusion would be services with a commentary. Such services are primarily for tourism purposes, such as the open-top sightseeing buses that we see coming down Whitehall and past the Palace. The third exemption would be services with at least one bookable seat. That would exclude the coach services between Heathrow and Victoria. If that service were included, London Councils would end up paying for the airport transfers of thousands of visitors to the capital, and I am convinced that that was not the intent of the Bill. So amendment No. 8 is specific and clear.
	Section 146 of the Transport Act 2000 allows a change of definition of eligible services. I suspect that the Minister will claim that the order-making power will be sufficient, but I do not believe that it will, for the reasons that I have just stated and because of the uncertainty to which I alluded previously. The amendment has the benefit of clarity. It would add to the definition of eligible services those that should be included and excludes those that should not be included in the Bill. The three extra definitions would remove considerable uncertainty, and there is no reason why they should not be added to the Bill. I listened carefully to the Minister's attempts to reassure me, but I can see no reason why she should not accept this sensible amendment.
	Amendment No. 6 addresses the definition of eligibility of concessionary fares in the 2000 Act and would add to them an additional section covering those with mental health difficulties.

Greg Knight: Is the wording of amendment No. 6 correct? Proposed new section 4A(e) seeks to include in the definition of a disabled person someone who
	"does not have arms or has long-term loss of both arms".
	I can envisage a situation in which someone has the short-term loss of both arms, perhaps because they have been involved in an accident and the arms have yet to be sewn back on, but I cannot envisage someone having the long-term loss of both arms. Should not the wording read "or has the long-term loss of the use of both arms"?

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is a standard definition that has been used before, and I had envisaged it applying to people who had had a stroke and suffered long-term loss of use, but the drafting would benefit from the addition of the words "the use of". I am grateful to him for pointing that out.
	My main intent in amendment No. 6 was the definitions in paragraphs (f) and (g), and the eligibility of people with mental health problems—

Lee Scott: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the provisions would include children suffering from autism, and their travel to school when provision for their education is not available in their local area?

Stephen Hammond: No, that is not the intention. The amendment relates to people with mental health problems. It is clear that eligibility for concessionary fares is a major factor in determining an individual's chance of recovery and reintegration into society. Access to community care, drop-in therapy centres, counselling and self-help groups all aid their recovery, and many of those service users rely on public transport. The essence of my point is that the amendment does not use the phrase "not holding a driving licence" to prevent people from accessing concessionary fares because even if they hold a driving licence, poverty and a fluctuating health condition may make driving impossible. Access to and eligibility for concessionary bus travel could be a major contributor to recovery from mental illness. I urge the Minister to consider the amendment.

David Davies: I am dealing with one such case in my constituency, in which a gentleman has had his driving licence revoked by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority because of an alleged black-out. My hon. Friend will be well aware from his Front-Bench duties that that can be appealed against. Will people lose their right to a concessionary bus pass if they apply for it in the interim period between appealing against a decision to revoke their licence and the return of that licence?

Stephen Hammond: My understanding is that those people would lose that right, because holding a driving licence would militate against the need for concessionary travel—although I would be delighted for the Minister to say otherwise.
	Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 concentrate on sole and principal residence. They would oblige the Secretary of State to issue guidelines to local authorities on how to determine a person's principal residence for the purpose of issuing concessionary passes. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State will be afforded the powers to do that, but will not be obliged to do it. It is extraordinarily important that local authorities be provided with clear guidance so that passes are issued on a consistent and rational basis. For instance, is the principal residence the place where people spend the most time, the place where they are registered to vote or the place where they pay full council tax?
	It is clear that that will be of considerable concern when the 2008 scheme comes into operation. If an elderly person has two residences, one in a town and one in a coastal resort, which is the place of principal residence? Had we used the previous council tax regulations, with reference to discount, we would have had clear guidance, or the Government may intend to include the test of principal residence for capital gains tax purposes. Neither of those tests can predict where someone spends the bulk of their time, and hence where the bulk of the concessionary travel usage is. The phrase
	"appearing to the authority to have their sole or principal residence in the authority's area"
	is ambiguous and open to interpretation.
	In Committee, the Minister stated that she would issue guidance to local authorities. The amendments enshrine in text the fact that she must issue that before the Bill comes into operation. Local authorities should not have to suffer uncertainty. The amendments bring clarity and certainty and should be supported.

Charles Walker: I was interested to hear what my hon. Friend said about what is defined as a local service. I want the Minister to give me guidance on a service in my constituency. Although bus services in Hertfordshire are largely the responsibility of the county council, within the borough of Broxbourne it was decided some months ago to provide a funded service from some of the main locations—the towns—to Chase Farm hospital. The bus is provided by the council, and people pay £5 one way and £5 to return. Would that be defined as a local service under the Bill? If so, would it be required to provide concessionary travel? Although the county council has responsibility for bus services, this one is provided by a local council in the county of Hertfordshire.

Paul Rowen: The three amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) cover some of the issues discussed in Committee, but I hope that the Minister can give an assurance about the eligibility of certain bus routes, as set out in amendment No. 8. We want to ensure that only normal bus services qualify: tourist buses, or buses that have only a limited number of stops or are provided for special circumstances, should not be covered.
	I want to concentrate on amendment No. 6. It is very similar to the proposals in amendments Nos. 2 and 1, which are in my name, and it deals with some important matters that remain unresolved. The problem with amendment No. 6 is that we had reached agreement on how disabled people should be defined for the purposes of concessionary fares. For example, the matter was covered by section 146 of the Transport Act 2000, and in section 240(5) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
	However, mental health is not covered. The Minister wrote a detailed letter about the problem, and I am pleased that her officials have begun talks with Mind to see whether there is any scope for broadening the existing definition. The Bill's primary definition of a person with mental disability is someone who is not fit to drive. That is a medical rather than a social definition, and so not appropriate.

David Davies: I have worked with mentally ill people in various capacities, and fully understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, mental illness can encompass a wide range of problems—from people who are unable to care for themselves to those who, sometimes exaggeratedly, claim to have minor depression as a way to enhance the benefits that they receive from the Government. Unless we pin down what is meant by mental disability due to mental illness, it would be difficult for the Government to introduce the concession, as there could well be a flood of applications from people not necessarily entitled to it.

Paul Rowen: I totally agree, and that is why I welcomed the letter from the Minister and the ongoing discussions conducted by her officials. If amendment No. 6 is pressed to a vote, I shall not support it, as I would far rather engage in discussions that would enable us to arrive at a workable definition.

David Taylor: Was the hon. Gentleman not rather shocked by the unsubstantiated assertion that a substantial proportion of claims for incapacity benefit, for instance, on the grounds of mental ill health are fabricated cases? In fact the evidence shows the reverse: good numbers of people with mental ill health, who may or may not be eligible for concessionary transport under the amendment, neither seek help nor have their condition diagnosed. So the suggestion that somehow there is large-scale fabrication is just not true.

Paul Rowen: I agree. Mental health is one of the big unsung issues that we as a country and this House need to address. That is why I welcome the ongoing discussions on a workable definition of mental ill health. Whether we like it or not, for many people part of the road to recovery is getting out into the community, visiting drop-in centres or education centres, and often a barrier to that is the lack of public transport.

Stephen Hammond: I understand why the hon. Gentleman has reservations about amendment No. 6, but I am sure that he agrees with the intent of the amendment, which is to widen the clause to ensure that people with mental illness have access to concessionary travel.

Paul Rowen: I accept that. I hope that part of the outcome of the debate this afternoon will be that the definition is broadened. We can come back to the House once we have a workable definition and the discussions with Mind have been brought to a conclusion, so that more and more people can qualify.
	There is one other area that I do not think that other hon. Members have mentioned, although I believe that it is partly covered by the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. People with a communication or social disability such as Asperger's syndrome do not have a learning disability. They would be excluded by strict interpretation of the definition in the Transport Act 2000. While people with Asperger's syndrome are not generally refused a driving licence, they have to notify the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of their condition. Their cases are assessed on an individual basis. That can make car insurance unaffordable, especially for young people. So I hope that when the Minister continues her review, she will consider people suffering from Asperger's, and whether we can deal with those issues.
	In conclusion, although we agree with the thrust of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, we believe that the most sensible course will be to continue the dialogue with Department for Transport officials and then bring a definition back to the House.

Gillian Merron: This is a large group of amendments and they span a number of important issues. I shall start with amendment No. 8 in respect of "eligible journey". I am grateful to hon. Members for raising once again the interesting issue of how we define "eligible journey", which in the context of clause 1 must be considered alongside the definition of "eligible service". The amendment would add three additional requirements for a journey in England to be considered eligible for the purposes of concessionary travel.
	I give an assurance to hon. Members that the issue of how to define "eligible service" is already receiving much attention, and we keep it under active review. Some of the proposals in the amendment may well have merit, and we will certainly consider them. I can give that undertaking as we go forward.
	Interestingly, at the end of March my officials convened a workshop to discuss this issue. Only last week, officials again discussed the issues with Transport for London, London councils and other local authority and industry representatives. By a remarkable coincidence, if I might describe it that way, some of the initial suggestions that emerged last week bear a striking resemblance to the content of today's amendments. I can only conclude that in this case great minds clearly think alike. It would surely be a mistake to turn initial suggestions into legislation without having had a proper chance to reflect and consult more widely, whether informally or formally, on the proposals. We want to hold extensive discussions with those who would be affected to avoid unintended consequences, and I reassure Members that there will be plenty of time for such consideration.
	The term "eligible service", to which "eligible journey" is linked, is defined clearly in secondary legislation—currently, the Travel Concessions (Eligible Services) Order 2002. If necessary in the future, the Government could amend the order to make any of the changes outlined in the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and his colleagues, by virtue of powers under section 94 of the Transport Act 1985 and section 146 of the Transport Act 2000. As well as giving time for full and proper consideration, such an approach would of course preserve flexibility to make further changes to the definition in future, if necessary. Like the House generally, I believe that primary legislation is simply not the place to specify a definition of that type. The proper place for such matters is in secondary legislation, not on the face of a Bill. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment No. 6 relates to the definition of disability in the context of the Bill. As I said in Committee, I realise that the intentions behind the proposal are good. However, as I have explained previously, the Bill is about expanding the geographical scope of concessionary bus travel; it is not about extending the concession to other groups of people, so it is premature to consider extensions when the Government are still in the process of introducing the national bus travel concession. However, I hope Members agree that the Government have already done a great deal to improve the well-being of older and disabled people, who are, as we all agree, among the most vulnerable in our society. Indeed, we are providing about £1 billion of funding each year for concessionary travel in England—a major public spending commitment of which we are rightly proud. The extension from local to national entitlement alone involves substantial new moneys, which will provide significant new opportunities for those who are disabled and over 60.
	I reiterate that I welcome efforts to raise awareness of transport issues for people suffering from mental health difficulties. As I said in Committee, I shall continue to ensure that officials meet Mind, which they did most recently last month. I certainly intend that constructive dialogue to continue. However, I draw the attention of Members to the fact that Mind indicated that, in terms of possible amendments to the Bill, the issue raised in amendment No. 6 was no longer of as much priority to the organisation as it had been previously.
	The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, to which the amendment refers, is an important piece of legislation and the Department has used its provisions to improve accessibility to transport vehicles for disabled people, but the Act was never intended to determine eligibility for concessionary travel, and it is not appropriate to use it in that way. The amendment would significantly expand the number of people who could become eligible and, as we have discussed many times, the consequence would be the need for a commitment of considerable sums of money to provide such a concession.
	It is not simply a question of resources, however. A number of practical and administrative issues would have to be considered and resolved; for example, we would need a robust and fair system for assessing eligibility against the definition of mental impairment. We would need to decide who would do the assessing and set up a process for people to appeal against determinations. It is important that all those with an interest and expertise in the area have the opportunity to feed into the development of such a significant change before legislation, so changing the definition of "disabled person" on the face of the Bill at this stage would be premature and impractical. However, I assure the House that the Government are keeping these issues under review. Indeed, as part of our plans for the implementation of the national bus concession, we are already considering whether it is necessary to update the guidance to local authorities on assessing eligibility. I hope that hon. Members will now be able to agree that the approach that the Government are taking is a right, measured and practical one. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendment.
	Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 would oblige the Secretary of State to issue guidance to travel concession authorities on the issue of "sole or principal residence" for people applying for a pass. As I have already said, the Department is actively engaging with local authorities and bus operators regarding the implementation of the national bus concession for April next year and it will continue to do so. Let me reassure hon. Members that if we felt, following consultation with local authorities, that such guidance was needed, we would of course issue it, after working closely with local authorities on the drafting.

Charles Walker: The Minister is making rapid progress, but may I take her back to the beginning of her speech? Can I clarify that the eligibility of Broxbourne council's hospital bus scheme for concessionary fares will be considered in secondary legislation? Am I right in thinking that?

Gillian Merron: To assist the hon. Gentleman, I refer him to the order that I have already mentioned. Bus operators and local authorities should refer to that. Obviously I cannot comment on specific cases, but should he require assistance, I would be happy to provide it on the receipt of further details.
	On amendments Nos. 9 and 10, the Bill already includes a power for the Secretary of State to issue such guidance, so I see no need for the amendments. In fact, it would be bizarre to be required to implement guidance that was not required by those who would be in receipt of it and that would risk diverting valuable resources from other important work to which I am sure both sides of the House wish us to be committed. The amendments are insufficiently flexible and are superfluous. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Member for Wimbledon will not press amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 6 and that he will withdraw amendment No. 8.

Stephen Hammond: I was delighted to hear at the outset of the Minister's speech that great minds think alike. There is certainly some agreement. I listened with interest to what she had to say about amendments Nos. 6, 9 and 10. As she knows, they were essentially probing amendments, particularly as she said in Committee that she would make sure that guidance was available to local councils. I therefore take her points on amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and about the continuing discussions with the relevant charities and bodies about amendment No. 6.
	Great minds think alike, and my small mind has joined the great minds of the Minister and her excellent officials who have come to the same conclusion as I have, which is that the three extra possible definitions of eligibility should be considered. However, I am slightly troubled by her saying, "Let's leave it all to secondary legislation." There are three definitions in the Bill and given that there seems to be a general consensus that we are likely to want to operate the three extra definitions, there seems to be no reason why they should not be in the Bill. I would therefore like to test the will of the House on amendment No. 8.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 165, Noes 239.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 13
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Stephen Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 11, page 10, line 39, leave out subsection (3).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 12, page 11, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
	No. 13, clause 15, page 11, line 6, leave out from 'on' to end of line 7 and insert '1st April 2008'.

Stephen Hammond: These are technical, probing amendments, and I am really just looking for some reassurance from the Minister. Amendment No. 11 is designed to remove the powers given to the Secretary of State in clause 13(3). Amendment No. 12 removes subsection (4) of the clause, which relates to subsection (3). Currently, the Secretary of State may
	"make any amendments, repeals or revocations of any relevant enactment that appear to him to be appropriate in consequence of any provision of this Act."
	That seems an extraordinarily wide-ranging power; why does the Secretary of State need it? Presumably, when drafting the Bill, the Government took into account all the adjustments that would have to be made to previous legislation. Does the Minister foresee circumstances in which concessionary bus travel becomes so popular that local authorities start to howl at the financial pressure, but central Government are not prepared to give a cast-iron commitment? Those seem to be the only circumstances in which the Secretary of State could wish to use the power. Will the Minister therefore explain why it is necessary?
	Turning to amendment No. 13, as things stand, the Bill would allow the Secretary of State to appoint the day on which it comes into force, but is it really necessary or right for the Secretary of State to choose the day? We have known all along that the commitment is that the Bill will come into force on 1 April 2008, so will the new Secretary of State for Transport really need that power? I look forward to the Minister's explanation of why the powers referred to in the amendments are necessary, why those powers should be kept in the Bill, and why the amendments should not be pressed to a Division.

Gillian Merron: All three amendments aim to change provisions in the Bill relating to the Secretary of State's powers with regard either to minor or consequential amendments or to the commencement of the measure. It is a little strange that hon. Members have waited until Report to raise those points of concern, as there has been plenty of opportunity to do so, both inside and outside the House. I cannot help but wonder about the extent to which the issues in the amendments are of genuine concern. That aside, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will not be surprised to learn that my reasons for not accepting the amendments go beyond the time at which they were tabled.
	Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 would delete two subsections from clause 13. Those subsections have been included in the Bill for good reason, and I hasten to add that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee accepted that that is the case, as it did not draw attention to the power in clause 13(3) in its report on the Bill last December. The Department was very grateful for the report, as Lord Davies of Oldham made clear in his response of 18 January this year. As the Department explained in its original memorandum to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—that memorandum is in the public domain—clause 13(3) provides a power for the Secretary of State, by order, to make such consequential amendments to other enactments and instruments as may be appropriate in consequence of any provision in the Bill when enacted.
	It may be helpful to hon. Members if I reiterate the explanation that we gave to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the inclusion of the power in subsection (3). It ensures that, should the Secretary of State find, as a consequence of bringing the provisions of the Bill into force, that other primary legislation needs to be amended, they have the power to do so without the need for further primary legislation. The power is limited to such amendments as may be needed as a consequence of provisions made in the Bill. The provision would also provide a single power to enable the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to secondary legislation without the need to rely on a number of different order-making powers from different enactments. That power is intended to deal with matters that cannot be foreseen or which have not been identified at this stage. In the nature of things, it is not possible to predict in any detail the circumstances in which there might be a need to exercise that power. To provide further clarification, the Bill contains detailed provisions dealing with the relationship between the Transport Act 2000, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Transport Act 1985. The issues and provisions have been considered in detail but, given their complexity, it is still possible that there are unforeseen or unanticipated issues. If so, the power might be needed to resolve them without recourse to further primary legislation. Although there is a power to deal with the unforeseen, there are no current plans to use it. Moreover, I assure hon. Members that the power is subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, which provides Parliament with the opportunity to scrutinise any proposed use. Consequently, I hope that, like the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee before them, hon. Members are reassured about the reasoning behind the power.
	Amendment No. 13 would alter the Secretary of State's power in clause 15(1) by order to appoint the commencement date of the measure, and to bring different provisions into force on different days. If accepted, it would result in the entire measure being commenced from 1 April next year. I cannot find it in myself to accept such a change. The drafting of clause 15(1) deliberately provides the Secretary of State with the power to commence the Bill's provisions at different times if needed, which is common practice in the House. Again, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was satisfied with that power. As part of the Department's work on the implementation of the national concession, we are considering which provisions in the Bill need to be commenced at which point. It is not necessarily as simple or straightforward, as Opposition Members may believe, as commencing everything from 1 April 2008. There are aspects of implementation, such as those relating to the issuing of passes and to reimbursement arrangements, that may need to be commenced before April 2008 if local authorities and operators are to meet their obligations from April. In addition, although we fully intend the national concession in England to come into effect from next April, no final decision has been taken on the exact date, although it is likely to be early in April.
	I remind the House that 1 April next year is a Tuesday. We need to consider any operational and practical issues for operators and local authorities alike that may result from commencing a significant change in arrangements part-way through the working week. Discussions with the concessionary fares working group will continue and we welcome the group's assistance. With that in mind, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment and also amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

Stephen Hammond: I was surprised to hear at the beginning of the Minister's remarks that there is a new principle in the House that there is some time limit for the tabling of amendments to be reconsidered. I thought that the purpose of Report stage was for hon. Members to table amendments and to continue to probe and scrutinise the Government. I was therefore somewhat disappointed by the Minister's remarks. However, her explanation was full and reassuring, and I am grateful to her for that.
	Despite my initial temptation to press an amendment on account of the Minister's uncharacteristically ungracious remarks, I shall resist. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	The London Free Travel Scheme

Paul Rowen: I beg to move amendment No. 4, page 13, line 18, at end insert—
	'(7) After paragraph 5(7) insert—
	"(8) Where a London authority considers the amount notified by Transport for London under paragraph 5(1) to be excessive—
	(a) the authority may within 14 days of being notified by Transport for London apply to the Secretary of State to review the proposed charge;
	(b) if the Secretary of State agrees that the proposed charge is excessive, then he shall notify both Transport for London and the authority of an alternative lower amount.".'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, page 13, line 18, at end add—
	'(7) After paragraph 5(7) insert—
	"(8) Where a London authority considers the amount notified by Transport for London under paragraph 5(1) to be excessive—
	(a) the authority may within 28 days of being notified by Transport for London apply to the Secretary of State to review the proposed charge; and
	(b) if the Secretary of State agrees that the proposed charge is excessive, then he shall notify both Transport for London and the authority of an alternative lower amount.".'.

Paul Rowen: Amendment No. 4 deals with Transport for London charges for permits and seeks to change the reserve concessionary travel scheme in London, so that if London boroughs consider the amount that Transport for London wants to charge is excessive, the boroughs can ask the Secretary of State to arbitrate.
	The London reserve free travel scheme is set out in section 241 and schedule 16 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It applies only to London, and in negotiating travel concessions London Councils has to reach agreement with TfL on a scheme for its services by 31 December prior to the financial year for which the scheme comes into effect.
	If no agreement is reached, the statutory reserve scheme, at a cost determined by TfL, comes into effect. That puts London Councils at a disadvantage when negotiating with TfL, because TfL can determine the costs of the reserve scheme. In effect, uniquely for London, the costs of the concessionary fares scheme are determined by the operators who benefit, whereas elsewhere they are determined by the local authorities, subject to appeal to the Secretary of State.
	By way of explaining why the amendment is needed, I refer to a recent example of how TfL is acting in relation to concessionary fares. The reserve scheme covers all the services provided or procured by TfL. As a result of TfL taking over responsibility for the North London Railway franchise from next November, concessions for that route will form part of the reserve scheme for the first time. London boroughs had no say about that. The amount that TfL will get for concessions on those services is currently under negotiation. I understand that TfL has suggested that London Councils should pay around £1 million for the concessions. London Councils currently pays the Association of Train Operating Companies only about £600,000 for those concessions. Nothing will have changed when the new scheme comes into operation next year, yet TfL has insisted that the London boroughs should pay two thirds more than is currently the case by paying directly to ATOC. There is no appeal, and London boroughs will have to pay up.
	Despite claims by the Mayor of London, the amendment is not about seeking to water down or change London's freedom pass. For the past 23 years, London boroughs have paid for the freedom pass. The scheme provides older and disabled Londoners with free travel on all the capital's buses, trains, tubes and trams, and the amendment is not an attempt to change that. It is designed to ensure that the London boroughs are put on the same level playing field as other boroughs, so that if there is no agreement on the amount that the concession should cost, the Secretary of State can arbitrate on it. That is a fair and reasonable request, and I am prepared to press the amendment to a vote.

John McDonnell: I seem to have spent half my adult life defending the London concessionary scheme. I pay tribute to those councillors on the Greater London council who instigated the scheme on a cross-party basis—Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat. The scheme was well in advance of its time, and it brought an advantage to London pensioners that improved the quality of their lives. It was years in advance of its time in terms of its impact on the environment, because it took people out of their cars and on to London transport.
	During the debates on the abolition of the GLC, a cross-party lobby of London MPs linked up with pensioners and GLC councillors—the London boroughs unfortunately split on the matter—to insert in the legislation a reserved scheme and arrangements to bring the boroughs together to ensure that the concessionary scheme continued. In my period on the GLC—I was chair of finance and deputy leader—we brought forward investment in the scheme. That improved the benefits for pensioners, of which I am proud. When the GLC was abolished, that legislation protected the scheme.
	I was the chief executive of the Association of London Authorities and then the Association of London Government, which brought the boroughs together to protect the scheme. Unfortunately, an axis of malevolence among the boroughs has repeatedly tried to undermine the scheme, either by introducing means tests and charges or by crippling it in some other way. No matter what the intentions of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) are, the amendment is another dangerous attempt to undermine the scheme in the long term by passing powers to the Secretary of State and out of the hands of Londoners.
	TfL is under the control of the Mayor of London, who is directly elected by Londoners. Londoners will have a democratic say in determining this scheme, and as a result TfL will be held to democratic account through the Mayor. The amendment is incredibly dangerous. If we pass from London government to central Government the opportunity to undermine the scheme and the benefits to pensioners, no London pensioner will forgive the parties responsible.

Paul Rowen: I do not represent a London seat, but my seat is in Greater Manchester. Will the hon. Gentleman point out some examples of other boroughs across the country where the Secretary of State has—God forbid!—acted malevolently against the interests of concessionaires?

John McDonnell: Because the London scheme is so much in advance of those outside London, central Government and some individual boroughs have always argued that it is too expensive and that it is extravagant. However, any London pensioner will tell the hon. Gentleman how it has enhanced the quality of their life. I do not trust central Government under any guise with the long-term future of the scheme. The hon. Gentleman may well have tabled the amendment with good intentions with regard to equity, but knowing the history of the scheme, central Government cannot be trusted with its long-term future. I urge the Government to reject the amendment and hope that London MPs can join together, as we did in the past, on a cross-party basis to protect the scheme, which provides such benefits to London pensioners.

Stephen Hammond: Amendment No. 7, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends, makes a small yet important change to the reserve concessionary fares scheme, but is in essence exactly the same as amendment No. 4.
	Let me state at the outset, so that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) can hear and so that there can be no dissembling from City Hall as to our position, that the Conservatives support the freedom pass and will continue to do so. London Councils, the body that runs the concessionary fares schemes on behalf of the boroughs, strongly supports the amendments. London Councils is the voice of the 32 boroughs and the City of London, and for the past 23 years it has paid for and run the freedom pass. The pass did not arrive with the Mayor. London Councils has no intention of watering down or scrapping the scheme, and to suggest otherwise is arrant nonsense.

John McDonnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen Hammond: Just once, because I only have a short time.

John McDonnell: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in the past several boroughs have put forward proposals to reduce the benefits that the scheme provides to London pensioners? That is a matter of historical record.

Stephen Hammond: That may be so, but it is equally true that no one is currently proposing that the scheme should be watered down; neither would the amendments water it down.
	In the latest edition of his freesheet, "The Londoner", the Mayor states:
	"My ability to guarantee the scheme if boroughs disagree ensures that it is never under-funded or watered-down."
	That is nonsense. London Councils and the official Opposition have always been consistent. There is no threat to the freedom pass and no attempt to underfund it or water it down. The guarantee of the scheme is enshrined in law, not with the Mayor. The Mayor goes on to state:
	"My ability to guarantee the Freedom Pass each year ensures that older and disabled Londoners continue to get free concessions."
	Again, that is wrong. It is guaranteed by the 2006 scheme, the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and now, the Bill, not by the Mayor.
	The legislation on concessionary fares in London differs from the rest of England, partly, but not entirely, because the bus industry in London is more regulated. A further major difference is that the concessionary fares negotiations in London are underpinned by the statutory reserve free travel scheme in section 241 and schedule 16 of the 1999 Act. There is no equivalent scheme anywhere else in the UK. It is odd that the Government continue to consider that this elaborate special legislation for a reserve scheme is necessary in London but not anywhere else in the country. In negotiating travel concessions, London Councils, on behalf of the London boroughs, has to reach agreement with Transport for London for a scheme that needs to be implemented on their services by 31 December before the financial year in which the scheme comes into effect. That clearly puts London Councils at a disadvantage when negotiating with TfL. TfL can determine the costs of the reserve scheme. The negotiations cannot be conducted on an equal footing, because whatever London Councils proposes, TfL—or in most cases, as he so often claims, for TfL read the Mayor—can reject whatever the proposals may be. There is no reason or incentive for it to negotiate.
	I am sure that in a moment the Minister will repeat that if London Councils and the Mayor reached an agreement on alternative arrangements, the Government would consider them. However, it is no good her saying that. The reserve powers have never been used because TfL is in an unfair and unequal position. The Mayor and TfL have no incentive to agree any change. It suits them very well to have a reserve scheme in the background where the costs can be determined by TfL, which is one of the parties to the negotiations, and where there is no appeal mechanism.
	The attempts by London Councils to raise this issue have been met by the Mayor saying that that it is attempting to water down the scheme and to reduce benefits. London Councils has repeatedly said that that is not so. There has been a war of press releases, and the Mayor has even roped in various celebrities to support him. This week, Andrew Gilligan's article in the  Evening Standard was most interesting. It stated:
	"WARNING to all London pensioners: if a man with a nasal South London accent, a nasty temper and a bad record of dodgy press releases turns up at your door claiming your free bus pass is 'under attack', call the police at once."
	That is fair.
	All that the amendments would do is give the Secretary of State a role as the final arbiter in the event of a dispute about whether the cost is excessive. That would happen in only limited circumstances. First, London Councils and Transport for London would have to fail to reach an agreement by 31 December. Secondly, the reserve scheme would have to be effected, Transport for London would have to let London Councils know the cost, and London Councils would have to take the view that it was excessive. The Secretary of State would have a role only if those things happened. One hopes that they never will.
	The current scheme is unique and places a more onerous requirement on London than on authorities in other parts of the country. If the Under-Secretary believes that the new scheme will work so well elsewhere and that the appeal process is appropriate for other parts of the country, why is it not appropriate for London?
	The amendment's impact would be significant. By having the Secretary of State as the final arbiter in the circumstances that I described, Transport for London and London Councils are much more likely to agree to reasonable demands. The threat to invoke the reserve scheme if no agreement is reached will lessen. The change is simply to ensure a fair and appropriate deal for boroughs in their negotiations with Transport for London and to put the boroughs on an equitable basis with all other local authorities in the country.
	The amendment is not, was not and will not be about altering the concessions that well over a million older and disabled Londoners, many of whom are my constituents, enjoy.
	I urge the Government to use the opportunity of the Bill to alter the reserve scheme so that, in the case of a dispute, it is decided, in extremis, by the Secretary of State. That puts London in line with the rest of the country and must be correct.

Gillian Merron: There is a sense of déjà vu about the debate as we discuss again the London reserve free travel scheme. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his correct and spirited defence of the freedom pass and the provision of the Mayor, which does much for people in London, especially those who are more vulnerable. On that basis and with those Londoners' interests in mind, I shall recommend that the amendments should not be accepted, and, indeed, that they should be withdrawn.
	As hon. Members know, the purpose of the reserve free travel scheme is to guarantee concessionary travel in London when there is no agreement either among the London boroughs or between the boroughs and Transport for London about how best to provide and fund minimum travel concessions.
	Amendments Nos. 4 and 7 deal with the specific issue of cost. If I may say so, with as much graciousness as I would always wish to display, it is disappointing to consider again amendments that are so similar to those that were rejected in Committee. Indeed, the only difference between today's amendments and the amendment that we discussed in Committee is that the deadline for a London authority to appeal to the Secretary of State would be extended from seven to 14 days in amendment No. 4, and from seven to 28 days in amendment No. 7.
	Whether the proposal is for a week, a fortnight or a month, hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the Government's position remains constant, especially given that the Opposition parties propose differing deadlines.
	Like the amendment that was tabled in Committee, where it was amendment No. 19, the amendments provide for the addition of a new paragraph 5(8) to schedule 1 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 to the 1999 Act allows Transport for London to stipulate a charge per pass payable by London authorities to cover the costs to it of providing the concessions under the reserve free travel scheme. The amendments would allow a London authority to appeal to the Secretary of State in the event that the charge is considered "excessive", and allow the Secretary of State to determine a lower amount if appropriate. However, paragraphs 5(3) and (4) already specify what may be included in calculating the costs of the reserve free travel scheme, and further matters which must be taken into account. Transport for London will already be acutely aware that if it is not reasonable in its assessment, London authorities will seek judicially to review the determination, and may even refuse to pay while a review is under way. I would hope that that offers the soundest of guarantees. I would also ask Opposition Members what exactly the word "excessive" should be taken to mean. How is it to be interpreted? How is it to apply?
	I recognise that there are genuine concerns among the London boroughs about the reserve free travel scheme and its perceived inequity.

John McDonnell: There may have been concerns raised by individual boroughs, but none of them has gone to the electorate with this proposal. As we shall have mayoral elections next year, may I suggest that, if the other parties in the House wish to amend the scheme in a way that will undermine it—as I think this would—they should put it to the London electorate to decide on next year?

Gillian Merron: My hon. Friend makes a constructive point that I am sure Opposition Members will wish to consider.
	As we have seen from this discussion, this is a complex area. It is also one where, I fear, no one solution will please all parties. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, until the boroughs and TfL can agree a way forward with regard to any potential change to the reserve scheme, we are not convinced of the case for changing in any way the legislation that guarantees a minimum standard of concessionary travel across the capital. I suggest that the reserve free travel scheme, as currently specified, best guarantees continuing concessionary travel in London. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen) will withdraw his amendment.

Paul Rowen: I have listened to the Minister's arguments, but on this occasion, I still wish to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	 The House divided: Ayes 139, Noes 244.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Order for Third Reading read.

Gillian Merron: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	We had an interesting debate on Report, and I am grateful to everyone who took part in it and in our deliberations in Committee. We have given the Bill a thorough consideration. I am also glad to say that the Bill's principles have received widespread support on both sides of the House. I am pleased that hon. Members' comments were both constructive and insightful.

Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend says that there was detailed consideration on Report and in Committee, but there did not appear to be much consideration of provisions on the reciprocal arrangement for providing travel concessions between different parts of the UK. How will that be taken forward? Obviously, I have a particular interest in the arrangements between Scotland and England, and other parts of the UK as well.

Gillian Merron: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Bill extends off-peak concessionary travel from local to national areas within England, but as I have stated several times—I am happy to give the assurance again—it also allows local authorities to make immediate cross-border arrangements if they do not have them in place. It also allows for debate and discussion with the devolved Administrations, which has taken place and will continue. However, our priority is to get the scheme up and running in England from April 2008.
	I am glad to remind the House—I make no apologies for continuing to say this—that the Bill means that for the first time around 11 million older and disabled people will be able to use off-peak local buses free of charge anywhere in England. They will have the freedom to travel across district or county boundaries to nearby shops, to access health care and to visit friends and relatives, and they will have free off-peak bus travel when visiting any part of England. As I have said many times, this Government recognise that buses are particularly important for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They often provide a vital lifeline to services such as shops, leisure facilities and hospitals. That is why the measures are so important and why, from next year, we will be providing around £1 billion a year for concessionary travel.
	The steps that we are taking build on the Government's previous work. In 2001, we acted to ensure that half-price bus travel in England for all older and disabled people would be available within their local authority area. In 2006, we made such travel completely free. Now we are going still further for those 11 million people up and down the country by enabling them to enjoy free England-wide bus travel. It is an achievement of which all Labour Members can be justly proud. I am sure that it is one that our constituents will continue to welcome.
	I want to put on the record my gratitude, and the Government's gratitude, to a wide range of local authority and bus operator representatives and others, who have been so constructive in assisting us as we prepare for the national concession. The Department's concessionary fares working group and its specialised sub-groups have been invaluable in assisting us as we finalise details of implementation. We are also grateful for the constructive dialogue that we have had with groups representing disabled and older people. I very much look forward to the Bill becoming an Act and to the considerable benefits that this important piece of legislation, introduced by this Government, will deliver.
	For the first time, the Bill guarantees that no older or disabled person in England need be prevented from travelling by cost alone. It brings real social inclusion benefits for our communities. It is another important step forward in transport provision, and with great pride I commend the Bill to the House.

Stephen Hammond: From the outset, the official Opposition have made clear our wholehearted support for the principle behind the Bill. As the Minister said, the introduction of a national concessionary bus travel scheme will benefit many people, and the proposals have rightly enjoyed cross-party support.
	We have given the Bill proper and extensive scrutiny, both in Committee and today on Report. We have examined its definitions and scope, as well as the eligibility of the persons and services involved and how the scheme will be funded. The spirit was one of great minds working together, so I am disappointed that the Minister did not see fit to accept one or two of the clarifying amendments that we tabled. Our concerns were well founded, but I accept her explanations.
	I am grateful to the Minister for the way that she has answered our questions throughout the Bill's passage through Parliament. I am also grateful to her and her officials for their courtesy in inviting us to the pre-meeting, and for the explanatory letters that she has provided. They have been extremely useful to all Opposition Members. I am grateful, too, to those of my colleagues who were also in the Committee, and to my staff who helped me with drafting all the amendments.
	The Bill may be small, as was noted earlier, but it is extraordinarily important. It has the power to enrich the lives of many fellow citizens. The departing Prime Minister spoke yesterday about the power of good that politics can achieve, and I think that he was probably referring to measures such as this. Many elderly and disabled citizens will now be able to use local services nationally, free of charge. The quality of their lives will be the better for it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) stated the Opposition's approach at the outset, when he said that we supported the Bill and the principle behind it. I am pleased to reiterate that now: the Bill has our support, and we wish it well in its progress to the statute book.

Mark Lazarowicz: As the Minister noted earlier, the Bill applies only to England and Wales. I have no objection to that, as I am glad that the example set by the Administration in the Scottish Parliament, who were until recently led by Labour, is being followed in England. However, the anomaly is that the Bill does not take us forward to a UK-wide concessionary scheme. As a result, pensioners and others entitled to concessions in Newcastle, for example, will get free bus travel in London, Truro or Plymouth, but not in Edinburgh. Similarly, their counterparts in Edinburgh can get free travel in Aberdeen and Glasgow but not in Newcastle, Carlisle or elsewhere.
	It is not merely a matter of cross-border arrangements for people who live in Berwick-on-Tweed or Dumfries, for example, although I sympathise with those hon. Members who represent those areas. Nor do I want to suggest that people should be able to travel from Caithness to Cornwall by bus, as that journey is not likely to be made very often, but we should allow pensioners and others to take advantage of these provisions in the different cities, towns and other parts of the UK. We should not lose sight of that goal, and I welcome the Minister's statement that the matter is being discussed with the devolved Administrations—even though some of them seem to want to build barriers between the rights and benefits enjoyed by citizens in different parts of the UK. I hope that the Government will pursue the establishment of a UK-wide concessionary scheme. Those of us with constituencies in the devolved areas will be lobbying the devolved Administrations to ensure that they respond positively to any discussions held at UK level.
	I hope that the Minister will take my remarks on board, and I welcome the assurances and commitments that she made a few minutes ago in her opening remarks for this debate.

Paul Rowen: Like the hon. Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), I welcome the passage of the Bill through the House. It is an example of where political parties of different persuasions can work together for the common good. I am grateful to the Minister and her team for the work that she has put in to make sure that we have been adequately briefed and engaged during the passage of the Bill. I am aware that during proceedings on the Bill in the other place and here she and her team have continued to listen to some of the issues that we have raised.
	I have no doubt in my mind that, although the legislation that we are passing today is rather uncluttered and not as complicated as other Bills, its national implementation will require the Government to ensure that on 1 April, or whatever day is deemed the start date, the 12 million pensioners to whom the Minister referred are able to make full use of an excellent piece of legislation.
	During the passage of the Bill, we and other Opposition Members have raised a number of issues, including cross-border issues, which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith has just mentioned, and eligibility for concessions on other modes of transport and the issue of using boats, which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) raised. We have asked whether carers should be able to use the service. We also raised the extension of eligibility, widening the definition of mental illness and the issue of cost. The Government have listened on some of those issues. They continue to listen.
	As the Minister mentioned, this is the third concessionary bus travel Bill that has made it easier for people to use public transport. I look forward to continuing the progress that we have made today and to having a genuine national concession which includes not just bus but other forms of transport and broadens eligibility. Notwithstanding that, I am delighted that the Bill is on its way and I look forward to its implementation.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Madam Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together motions 3, 4 and 5.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation  Committees),

Transport

That the draft Railway Pensions (Transfer of Pension Schemes) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.

European communities

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement amending the Cotonou Agreement) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved.
	That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Amended Cotonou Agreement) (Community Aid Internal Agreement) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 4th June, be approved .—[Mr. Roy.]
	 Question agreed to.

BURIAL LAW REFORM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Roy.]

Rosie Cooper: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on an issue of huge importance to families in my constituency. The Minister will know, I am sure, that I am very concerned about the lack of burial provision and have raised the matter regularly with the Ministry of Justice and its predecessor, the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
	Only last week in this Chamber during Questions I highlighted the plight of many bereaved families with the former Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who indicated that under the provisions announced in her written statement earlier this month, councils have additional options available to them, and that there really is no excuse for not providing the burial services much needed by local people.
	I understand that the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) is answering the debate at short notice, but I must impress on him how important the matter is for my constituents. My purpose today is to remedy the dreadful situation that persists in my constituency because of the unwillingness of West Lancashire district council to provide sufficient cemetery plots, a crematorium and a remembrance garden so that all local residents can bury their loved ones locally if they so choose. That is not the case at present, as many bereaved families are forced to find burial spaces in neighbouring authorities.
	The lack of burial facilities facing many West Lancashire families, especially those in Skelmersdale, is unjust, unfair and morally unacceptable. People are not being treated with the dignity and respect they deserve. The situation is compounded because it affects those most in need the worst. I am aware that inadequate provision of cemetery and crematorium space is not a West Lancashire-specific problem but that it affects many communities across the UK.
	The scale of the problem was recognised in the eighth report of the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in 2001. The results of a burial ground survey demonstrate that the problem of lack of burial space will only get worse unless steps are taken to resolve it. The survey found that approximately 80 per cent. of land available for burials is already occupied by graves, with only 20 per cent. unused. The Select Committee report states that as space in cemeteries runs out, it becomes more and more difficult to ensure that families have the widest possible choice of decent affordable options for the burial of their loved ones. I agree with the report that it is not good enough just to say to the bereaved, "Sorry, you're going to have to bury your loved one 20 or more miles away because there's no space left in your local churchyard."
	The report was the catalyst for work subsequently carried out by the Home Office, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and latterly the Ministry of Justice. The option of introducing a requirement for local authorities to make an assessment of local needs was set out in the recently published paper "Burial law and policy in the 21st century—the way forward". Disappointingly, the document did not make it a duty for local authorities to provide cemeteries—a missed opportunity.
	Today, West Lancashire district council has a population of about 108,000, of whom 75,000 live in my constituency; Skelmersdale alone accounts for more than 40,000 people. In the 1960s, people from Liverpool and the surrounding areas were asked to move to the new town of Skelmersdale and many did. The town's churches and their existing graveyards were meant only to serve Skelmersdale before it was developed into a new town. The graveyards are now full. As one constituent told me, "You can live in Skelmersdale and you can work in Skelmersdale, but whatever you do don't die in Skelmersdale."
	As long ago as 1997, it was estimated that Ormskirk and Aughton had cemetery capacity for only another 12 months. At that time only 30 new grave spaces were available in Skelmersdale. The problem increasingly affects all communities across my constituency, and it is getting worse by the day; information obtained from local clergy gives an idea of its scale. A Catholic priest recently informed me that in his parish more than 75 per cent. of local people were buried or cremated outside Skelmersdale. A local vicar told me that in his parish more than 90 per cent. of burials were outside West Lancashire.
	I understand that local authorities do not have an obligation or a duty to provide burial places for their residents.

Robert Goodwill: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. Lady who initiated the Adjournment debate?

Rosie Cooper: I am happy to give permission, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Robert Goodwill: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Lady. She and I serve together on the all-party funerals and bereavement group where she has raised this issue, in which I declare an interest. Does she recognise that many farmers have responded to the demand for green burials by setting up green burial sites in the countryside where there is plenty of land? Does she think that local authorities in her part of the world should smile on applications from farmers for those alternative burial spaces?

Rosie Cooper: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Later in my remarks, he will hear that I have had discussions with local farmers and they are offering their land. The district council should accept the offer and move with it immediately.
	Although local authorities do not have an obligation, I would strongly argue that it is morally indefensible for West Lancashire district council not to give people the means to bury their loved ones within a reasonable distance of their homes, rather than 20 or 30 miles away. The council has previously granted planning permission for a private company to provide a crematorium and identified an area in which to site a cemetery. However, there has been no action and no progress on that development. That is a really sad indictment of the council.
	In trying to find a solution, and as a member of the all-party group on funerals and bereavement, I have had discussions with many people, including landowners and private companies. They are interested in providing the land for the development of a cemetery or a crematorium. There is a real opportunity to produce a solution in the coming months in West Lancashire, and it is imperative that the local authority act to resolve the problem now; it needs to resolve it now.
	As I have said, I have worked closely on the issue with members of the local clergy across all the denominations and I have heard many heartbreaking stories. I have heard of cases of families not being able to bury their loved ones as they would wish, and of families who, to secure any burial plot at all, have had to go to Liverpool, St. Helens or Sefton. That places a significant financial and emotional burden on families at a very difficult time.
	Some families face an even more horrendous situation because they cannot find, or indeed afford, a plot. One family were told that they could have a 10-year plot in an adjacent borough. For others, cremation is forced upon them against their religious beliefs—but even then there is nowhere suitable in West Lancashire to scatter the ashes. There are many instances of people keeping ashes at home or burying them in the back garden, and I have been shown urns containing ashes of members of the family in the sideboards of homes in Skelmersdale. That is dreadful and a sad reflection of the council's attitude to the plight of its residents.
	A burial plot, if it were available in West Lancashire, would cost a resident £440, but one in nearby Liverpool could cost £1,422. That is double what Liverpool residents pay, and £982 more than another West Lancashire resident who already had access to a grave would pay. Burying a person in Sefton would cost £1,002, which is an extra £562.
	West Lancashire does not have its own crematorium either. The irony is that nearby Sefton has two sites, one of which is actually located within the boundaries of the West Lancashire area. However, only last year did Sefton revise its cremation fees policy so that residents in West Lancashire did not have to pay increased fees. For cremations, Liverpool charges £844 for a non-resident, which is twice the fee for its own residents, while St. Helens charges non-residents £352 to use its cremation facilities. And after that, there is still the problem of finding a suitable place to scatter the ashes. The Minister will be aware of the practice in most local authorities of non-residents paying a much higher price than local residents, to ensure that there is sufficient provision for the council's tax-paying residents. The question therefore arises of what will happen if West Lancashire council does nothing and the cemeteries in the adjacent areas can no longer assist.
	The costs that I have mentioned are only the beginning of the higher costs and the difficulties faced by my constituents. They pay increased costs to the undertakers for funeral services, because they cross local authority boundaries and there are increased distances and more time taken. There are also transport difficulties in West Lancashire, and there is no real community transport. If families do not have a car or want to use public transport to visit the distant resting place of their loved ones, they need to negotiate a public transport system that fails them. Often there are no buses to take people to cemeteries and crematoriums outside the area. That is a problem throughout my constituency and a major problem in Skelmersdale, the town with the lowest car ownership levels in the constituency and high levels of poverty and deprivation.
	To get from Skelmersdale to St. Helens is a 15-mile journey that can take one and a half hours, because there is no rail service in Skelmersdale. My constituents are obliged to take a bus to Wigan, a train to St. Helens and then the No. 358 bus to the cemetery. That is a round trip of nearly three hours. Travelling from Burscough to Anfield in Liverpool involves another three-hour round trip that also requires three changes of transport: a bus from Burscough to Ormskirk, a train to Aintree, and then another bus to the cemetery. Surely nobody can believe that that is acceptable.
	West Lancashire district council can and should make a decision now, especially as the most suitable land is ready and waiting and the providers are anxious to help. The council must provide a cemetery or refund the extra costs being borne by individuals and families in West Lancashire who have suffered a bereavement. Those local residents need to be repaid.
	The Human Rights Act 1998 gives a right to life, but as a local Catholic priest said to me:
	"It seems that even in death some are more equal than others in our society. Surely it is a basic human right that one's passing be marked with appropriate dignity and respect and that those who grieve be supported and comforted in a caring and humane fashion."
	A local councillor told me that in West Lancashire it is easier to bury hazardous waste than a loved one. It is time for the council to step up to the plate and make a decision. It should provide a cemetery or meet the increased costs paid by local residents. Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000, which deals with the promotion of well-being, would allow those payments to be made.
	The councillors who are involved in not taking a decision—the right decision—should examine their consciences. Members will not be surprised to know that there are those who believe that the memory of Dick Turpin is alive and well in West Lancashire district council, whose motto appears to be "Your money and your life."

David Hanson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) on securing this debate on an important matter for her. She has campaigned tirelessly on the issue of providing burial facilities in her constituency. At a local level, through the press and local campaigns, and elsewhere, including in the Chamber today, she has been encouraging the council to ensure that there are proper burial facilities for her constituents. She has run an exemplary campaign and I hope that it will bear fruit in due course.
	My hon. Friend will be aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) had ministerial responsibility for the issue within the Ministry of Justice. As the House will know, my right hon. and learned Friend secured the deputy leadership of our party at the weekend and was appointed to the Cabinet this morning, so I am answering on behalf of the Department today, although until this morning I did not have ministerial responsibility for the area.
	Burial arrangements and proper facilities for the dead continue to be matters of great importance and concern to the public. Not only my hon. Friend, but many other hon. Members continue to ask the Department to look at a range of issues, including progress on the review of law and practice.
	For some 1,500 years, burial was the only permitted way in which to dispose of dead individuals and was the preserve of the Church. The place of burial was the churchyard and the protection for the dead was ecclesiastical law. The law had to change in the 19th century because of population growth and due to the fact that churchyards could not cope with demand. New cemeteries were constructed and increasingly became the responsibility of newly emerging local authorities. A framework for secular legislation was developed in the 1850s to regulate both burials and burial grounds. Those arrangements essentially remain in place today. The question that the Ministry of Justice must ask—my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire put this very clearly—is whether that legislation meets our current society's requirements.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the Environment Sub-Committee's 2001 report, which addressed that very question. The report found that there were long-term problems with the maintenance and provision of burial space and that there was a need to examine antiquated burial legislation. Local councils have a lack of direction and priority, as is evidenced by West Lancashire district council's lack of local facilities.
	Following the Committee's report, the Government set up an advisory group of burial professionals and others. We commissioned a research study on cemetery management and published and examined its findings. We also published practical guidance for burial ground managers and the results of a survey on burial grounds in England and Wales. As a result of that effort, we issued a consultation paper on a review of burial law and a summary of responses. Earlier this month, we published, under the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham, a response to the issues raised that accompanied a statement to the House on the way forward.
	After careful consideration of the issues, the responses to the consultation paper, and subsequent discussions with burial professionals and others, my right hon. and learned Friend decided that there were a number of issues that we should take forward. Whoever, in these interesting times, is appointed to succeed her in the Ministry of Justice will be taking them forward on behalf of the Government.
	The Government decided that there was a real problem in finding suitable land for new cemeteries, at least in some areas. That might be because of a lack of available land, or because the cost of land put it beyond the budgets of local councils. Burial professionals have argued over many years that old burial grounds should be reused as a way of making land available and sustainable—that is especially important in this new age—while keeping burial facilities in communities. The sensitivities of disturbing existing burial grounds are obvious. However, the Government have reached the conclusion that the balance now lies in favour of allowing old graves to be used again, subject to appropriate safeguards and sensitive handling. The policy will be about providing local authorities with a wide range of options that they will need to consider carefully and in detail before proceeding.
	Our second proposal is to provide authorities with new guidance on the provision of new burial grounds and the maintenance to an appropriate standard of those that they already have. New cemeteries are now quite rare, so many authorities have no recent experience of the way in which to make a decision about the need for such facilities, or to consider the options that might be open to them. We will offer practical guidance to councils such as West Lancashire, and I hope that they will take that up. One such option, albeit a difficult one, will be the reuse of existing burial grounds.
	The Environment Sub-Committee was concerned about the condition of many burial grounds. We certainly need to challenge the perception that full and disused burial grounds have no value and should not be maintained. They can provide an amenity resource for a community just as much as other green and open spaces. Authorities need to consider whether they are making the best use of the resources that are available to them. We thus aim to offer guidance on how cemeteries can be maintained affordably.
	Several weeks ago, my right hon. and learned Friend outlined a third proposal. We should ensure that, when opportunities arise, we are ready to bring forward amendments to burial legislation so that we can modernise existing provisions and make them consistent with the 21st century, rather than the mid-Victorian age in which the legislation was drafted.
	In the light of discussion and consultation, there are a number of matters that we do not propose to take forward. First, it may disappoint my hon. Friend, but we do not find a comprehensive burial Bill an attractive option. Burial law has grown and developed in a haphazard way over the years, but it is difficult to argue that such a Bill is a priority. There are anomalies and inconsistencies in existing legislation, and we certainly want to reflect on that, but a comprehensive burial Bill is an option for another occasion.
	Secondly, we do not intend to take forward the proposal that my hon. Friend put to the House regarding the creation of new duties and a tighter regulatory framework, including an obligation on local councils and others to provide burial facilities and to ensure that burial grounds are run in a safe and responsible way. At present, no person or organisation is under any statutory duty to provide a burial ground. All local authorities below county-council level have the power to do so, and burial grounds can be provided by the Church of England, other Churches and faiths, and indeed by the private sector. On the whole, those discretionary arrangements are working relatively well.
	Most district councils operate one or more cemeteries of their own, or are satisfied that the town or parish councils in their areas are doing so. I accept that my hon. Friend says that West Lancashire district council has not done so. She powerfully made the case that they have a moral obligation to try to provide that service in the community. I am not a West Lancashire district councillor, or the chief executive or leader of that council, but I hope that those people listen carefully to the points that my hon. Friend made, because she is speaking for her constituents, and she wants such facilities to be provided.
	The question that next arises is what should happen if there are no local burial facilities. There is an argument for laying a duty on local councils to make provision if no one else does, but that has significant financial implications, and in some cases it could well be impractical for the simple reason that there is no suitable land available. The absence of local burial facilities does not imply that the only answer is for someone to provide them. As we have now decided, there is the option of reuse of old burial grounds; that could be a cost-effective solution when existing burial grounds are filling up. There is no reason to suppose that the private sector could not respond to demand if there was a commercial case for doing so. In West Lancashire's case, given the higher fees that people pay in Liverpool, Sefton and neighbouring local authority areas, there could well be a commercial case, never mind the moral case that applies to local councils, for finding sites in the council area, and providing services that are on a par with those that neighbouring authorities provide at exorbitant rates. I understand why those neighbouring authorities charge those rates; their taxpayers are not in a position to subsidise the taxpayers of West Lancashire.
	Although it may not always be convenient, recourse to neighbouring facilities is a solution in some cases. I hope that West Lancashire can discuss fees with neighbouring authorities, so that it can find out whether there is a possibility of working collaboratively with those authorities, and having shared facilities with neighbouring communities. Many authorities charge higher fees for non-residents, and we understand the reasons for that. However, it should be perfectly possible for local authorities to work collaboratively to provide shared facilities for neighbouring communities. Given the options available, we think it best that local councils and other potential providers be left to decide how to respond to any local shortage of provision, and how the costs of provision should be met, rather than have solutions dictated to them.
	My hon. Friend has brought an important issue to the Chamber, but it is ultimately an issue for West Lancashire district council. I hope that it will consider the moral force of her argument seriously. I think that it is best if local councils are able to decide how to determine local need, the cost of provision and what solutions are appropriate to their areas. That is better than introducing a general duty that they may or may not be able to meet because of local circumstances outside the control of central and local government.
	As for the case for more oversight of the running of cemeteries, we need to consider that, but I am not yet persuaded that additional arrangements are required. Robust procedures are in place for dealing with complaints about local authorities. As my hon. Friend will be acutely aware, West Lancashire district council remains accountable to its local electorate. Skelmersdale in my hon. Friend's constituency does not have a history of supporting the party that runs West Lancashire district council, but there will be opportunities in due course for the electorate to speak, and I hope that the debate will create an atmosphere of discussion about who is best placed to help provide those facilities.
	I hope that I have been able to cover the matters raised by my hon. Friend. In summary, she has made a very strong case, and represented her constituents well. The difficulty that we face in Government concerns the way in which we address the issue, which remains predominantly one for the local council. The debate will be read with interest in Skelmersdale, Ormskirk and the other parts of West Lancashire with which my hon. Friend's constituents and I are familiar. Ultimately, decisions must be made, because it is not tenable for individuals in West Lancashire to bury their relatives in neighbouring authorities at a higher cost than those authorities charge people who live within their boundaries. I wish my hon. Friend well in her campaign, and I hope that today's debate has helped her to highlight an important problem.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Six o'clock.